My feelings move towards the ultimate responsibility is on society (all of us) for not creating a better system. Though there are always going to be people that just don’t give a fuck.
My feelings move towards the ultimate responsibility is on society (all of us) for not creating a better system. Though there are always going to be people that just don’t give a fuck.
Laws are created by society. Therefore, crime is defined by society.
As a result, and in purely technical terms, society is completely responsible for crime.
Without society, there could be no crime.
wE LiVe In A sOcIeTy
I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make.
I mean, we do have the phrase “Take justice into your own hands”
You can do wrong by someone that receives retribution, without a law being present for it.
Laws just make that much, much, much less murky.
Again, purely technically speaking, that may not actually be crime. It may be wrong and you may feel justified in revenge, but it’s not crime unless something defines it as crime.
This might be assuming there’s no such thing as natural law. I guess some might argue there is a natural law, but breaking it doesn’t amount to a crime. In either case it’s somewhat contested in moral and legal philosophy circles.
I agree. That’s why I tried to stick to “in technical terms.”
Philosophically, could it be seen as “criminal” to take a stranger’s food if everyone lived solitary lives apart from each other? Would the word “crime” even exist, or would there be an equivalent term unrelated to societal laws?
Additionally, language norms can unintentionally cloud meaning. Did OP mean “would it be considered wrong,” but say “crime” because that’s how they perceive the idea?
It’s too easy to infer all kinds of meaning from a few words. So, at least in this case, it seemed best to be as literal and specific as possible, based on how OP asked. Even if it didn’t make for a satisfying answer