You're completely ignoring the tradition of natural law that has existed since Sophocles, that is based in the idea of natural rights and reason. You're arguing from a utilitarian perspective, which cannot be supported by reason.
Again, societies have had law since time immemorial. They've had law well before centralized committees have decided them. Law can be reasoned from self-evident first principles without invoking any additional authority.
So, once again, we can establish standards of conduct via social pressure. Which is what I'm trying to do here and now.
I certainly am.
It's wrong..the observations do not support that hypothesis.
Reason is fiction.
facts (observations) are real.
the facts support the hypotheis that any group larger than a clan (tribe, family,..whatever) act irrationally the larger that it gets.
most if not all societies are insane..some are just more violent than others.
Reason is fiction? You realize you reasoned that out just now, right? Performative contradiction comes in and saves the day again.
reason is not fact.
what else could it be?
There you go, using reason again even though it's a fiction.
yup..just like you are.
Ever do any mathematical proofs?
The reasoning can be PERFECT.
but if your precepts are incorrect...it's wrong.
I'm not the one insisting that reason is a fiction.
So unless you can reason as to how what I described is incorrect - that there are not first principles from which law (duties and obligations) can be derived - I suggest we move on from this point.
Once again, using social pressure to effect change has a well-established track record. Moreover, in a society where coercion is universally rejected, that's the only method for effecting non-violent change.
and I believe in miracles..do you?
oh wait..I don't.
and you accuse ME of fiction?
like I said...any society larger than a clan is insane.
violence is the norm.
I don't understand why you are so fixated on having a form of punishment when it is not needed. I cannot come into your home and steal your computer, or whatever.
You also mention
First of all, community opinions change quite drastically, sometimes year by year. Why should anyone have to be forced to abide to what a bunch of us think is correct behaviour.
I was always taught that you do not improve a situation through punishment, but through reward. We have a reward system and people have other natural needs, such as company, friends, admiration etc. Why impose flagging or downvoting, if it opens us to the possibility of someone abusing (abusing means someone was harmed) and we being forced to get together to express our disapproval - which will still leave the harmed person feeling traumatised.
Over the last two days I've seen how that works - some people just don't care if eveyone does not approve of them, they believe they have an inalienable right to do as they wish.