When does it become moral for the group to do what it is immoral for the individual to do?
That is, what can everyone together do to me that I can’t do to each of them?
Question One (what size justifies this): I don’t know. I’d say the size of a country.
Question Two (what can they do): Any standard legal punishment, including your money, freedom, and possibly your life.
They can tax you 
But whether that’s moral or not depends on your politics.
Capital punishment is used, supposedly, when a person commits an action so terrible, that, after due process, society, by way of the court system, decides that person is such a danger, he/she must be executed for society to be safe. Well, that’s the theory at least.
Individuals can kill for self-defense, and that’s what society appears to be doing with capital punishment.
These days, it seems more of an act of vengence rather than for society’s protection.
For the record, I’m AGAINST capital punishment. I feel our justice system, no matter how good, is flawed and mistakes are made. It’s only a matter of time before an innocent person is executed.
I’d rather “waste” our tax money on keeping a guity person alive than feeling the momentary satisfaction of killing (a potentially innocent) someone for the sake of “vengence.”
Okay, now for the question I forgot. Why is it moral for the group to do these things when it’s not moral for the individual to do them?
I’d say never. If it’s not moral for an individual, it’s not moral for a group. That goes for capital punishment as well (which I do not support, BTW).
Surgoshan wrote
Because the group is acting on behalf of an individual. If A steals $50 from B, then the group forces A to repay B. In the absence of group laws, it would be moral for B to take his money back on his own.
I agree with Democritus:
However, I think in the absence of laws, a murderer can morally be murdered for his transgression. Therefore, in the face of laws, I support the death penalty.
It is never moral for a group to do something that would be immoral for an individual to do.
If you robbed my neighbor, it would be moral for me to go over to your place and get the stuff back by force. If you tried to kill me, it would be moral for me to use deadly force to defend myself.
However, most of the time it is not a good idea to do things like this on your own. Humans are fallible. It is too easy to make a mistake about who deserves punishment. While it would be moral to take back the money by force, I wouldn’t do it…I would call the cops. It is to easy for others to misinterpret my actions…maybe they’d decide I was the bad guy, and that I needed punishment. Then a group of people will weigh the evidence and decide what needs to be done…hopefully they’ll do the same thing I would have done.
For instance, I think if someone speeds through town drunk, it would be moral for me to pull him from his car and beat the crap out of him. But for prudential reasons, we do not allow private citizens or police to do this…there’s to many opportunities for abuse. We each agree to give up our justifed right to beat the crap out of assholes who deserve it in return for protection from assholes who might try to beat the crap out of us.
Actually, I think that a group has less right to punish people than individuals. In the absence of laws, if someone tries to rob you, you are justified in doing whatever you can to punish him. You probably won’t be able to afford to build a prison and keep him in it for several years, so I would consider other stuff like cutting off his hand in the absence of other alternatives, to be moral. However, since a larger society has more choices than just cutting off people’s hands, it is obligated to make use of those choices.
Morality of the group? When is it moral for a group, for purposes of simplicity we will refer to a nation, perform actions which would be immoral when conidered by the individual. And why?
First we have to speak of morality. Actions are not simply moral or immoral, the vast majority of actions and thoughts and deeds are amoral. Very rarely can an action switch from moral to immoral, from immoral to moral. Most likely it will go to being amoral. I do not think any actions that are considered immoral can be considered moral when performed by the group, they can simply become amoral. Individual moralities differ. Some individuals will always think an action is immoral, even if the majority sees it as amoral. You also have the problem with different nations having different definitions of morality.
War is an instance of actions switching from immoral to amoral. Probably the best one we have. There are times when a war is considered nesecary by a society. However, if an individual american took it upon themselves to go and kill an Iraqi soldier, they would be considered immoral.
What enables this transfering of moral responsibility? Group consencus. If the attitude of the group changes, and if amoral actions performed by the country come to be regarded in an immoral light, then the action generally is no longer carried out. The shifting of opinion on the death penalty is a good example. As is the opinion on abortion.