Crime

There are many social norms. Some are good for the smooth functioning and health of our society. Some are essential for its survival. The most important ones or the ones that have complicated exceptions and applications may need to be written down as formal laws.

It is also important to write down these laws when we want to have a uniform application of sanctions. Informal social norms are often not uniformly applied. People can use their personal position or charm to circumvent the sanctions. For less serious infractions this may not be worth the effort of trying to force uniformity, but for the most serious norms, it is much more effective to make them formal.

This increases the feeling among potential lawbreakers that the punishment will be sure and swift, and therefore will hopefully provide a significant deterrent value.

This is particularly relevant to criminal laws. There are other types of laws, of course, that may still have moral implications. For example, the general idea of having laws to enforce contracts is very important for the building up of truthfulness, trustworthiness, and honesty in a society. The specific provisions, however, may have purely practical purposes and not necessarily be tied to moral issues.

But if morality is relative, how can we judge those who break the rules? Maybe they are just following a different path. Judge not lest you be judged.

Still, it is hard not to judge a mass murderer or a serial killer. Can we really stand back and give moral ground to the sociopaths of the world just because of some theoretical reservations?

Maybe we do not have an absolute basis for a judgment, but we do have a practical basis. Such behavior threatens our very existence as a society. We cannot accept a society that would tolerate such cruelty. So our judgment is based on the consequences of their behavior to our most cherished desires. Their freedom must be checked because it threatens too much. And it is very natural to feel anger and even hate for such cruelty. The harm is too great. If they want the benefits of living among us, they must follow the rules that allow us to live together.

We thus invoke social authority, even if we cannot see how to invoke authority based on absolute justification.

On the other hand, they could be breaking rules that really need to be changed. For example, if an abolitionist refused to obey the fugitive slave laws, can we really condemn them? There are times when laws have to be resisted and changed. But this does not apply to those who break the fundamental rules upon which all societies that we know about are based.

Again, if morality is relative, why should I pay attention to it? It is just some human rules. I can make my own rules.

The same arguments given above apply. If I want to be a part of society then I need to follow its basic rules. It is a part of the cost of group membership. And many of these rules are really needed for our mutual benefit.

In the case of basic moral rules which try to prevent harm to others, hopefully I can draw on my natural feelings of sympathy. Whether due to evolutionary pressures or due to some deeper source, most of us can sympathize with others. We can sense their pain and the pain of their loved ones. Our natural feelings of sympathy can be blunted by ambition and prejudice and strong desire, though. Also, it seems that some people are born without this natural human sympathy or they have it driven out of them to due to mental illness or early traumas and confusions.

In such cases we have to hope that the social sanctions will act as a deterrent. If they do not, we need to track them down and remove them from society. Maybe they can be retrained and can re-enter society later. Maybe not.