Thinking of man outside society is a purely mental abstraction, one employed by the Enlightenment thinkers and one that has resurfaced even in modern times. But conceiving of the state as a free social contract between individuals and society made sense in the eighteenth century, as a way of curbing or overthrowing the then absolute power of monarchies.

In reality, however, a world in which everyone was free to do whatever they wanted, perhaps even administering justice on their own, is by no means a natural arrangement for human beings. Humans naturally live in societies, which are always based on rules guaranteed by the State, or by a tribal chief—in short, by the community as a whole.

A world without rules would be a miserable, unsafe world, a veritable hell on earth. "Man is a wolf to man," Hobbes said, but in reality such a world has never existed.

For social animals, rules are instinctive; for human beings, they are established by human beings themselves. Society is not based on the free will or interpretation of the individual, but on common rules: this is our nature.

The rules of society, then, reflect human nature, or rather the interpretation of it given by the prevailing culture at a particular moment in history. But they always have a coercive aspect as well.

Killing someone we hate is a natural impulse, but society establishes a penalty for anyone who commits such an act.

Society exists because there are rules: it is rules that make society, not the other way around.

The problem is to determine which actions may have a positive or negative impact on society. In reality, whatever we do always has consequences for others, and so the task is to find a balance.

For example: are drug addicts a source of harm and/or danger to society?

Does walking naked in the street disturb other people or not?

Everything has an impact on others: the problem is to find the boundary between individual freedom and the needs of society.

The fundamental problem, then, is to identify this boundary, but above all to establish what is good and what is evil.

Science determines what is true and what is false through experiments that anyone can verify. Until further experiments falsify a theory, that theory is considered true.

This is not possible in the ethical and political sphere. Every civilization therefore has its own ethical outlook, which can change considerably over time. For example, monogamy exists only in our civilization, although until relatively recently it was largely a matter of form. In fact, wives would also accept that their husbands had other women. Vittorio Emanuele, for instance, was jokingly called "the father of the Italians" because of the many children he had, yet nobody, not even the Queen, seemed to think any the worse of him for it.

Things are different today: monogamy is becoming established throughout the world, and in our society women no longer accept their husbands' or partners' affairs at all.

Now, laws generally follow the prevailing ethical outlook, and this is actually true in democracies as well as elsewhere.

In democracies, however, governments enact laws in order to be re-elected by the people, just as they do in every other political system.

Now, it is certainly true to say that there may be a conflict between the general ethical outlook and TRUE ethics. But who determines what TRUE ethics is?

I may believe (although I do not) that polygamy is right, but the decision about its legality, as with everything else, is left to society.

Obviously, we live in society and are therefore deeply influenced by it.

We do not think like the Assyrians, nor even like our fathers and grandfathers, because society has changed. Naturally, this is also reflected in voting.

Religions proclaim general principles that are considered eternal and unchanging, and consistent with human nature. However, we must bear in mind that not everyone in a society follows the same religion and, above all, that in the modern Western world most people do not follow any religion at all.

In any case, it should also be noted that although religions have eternal and unchanging principles because they are believed to have been established by God, their interpretation can vary considerably, even within the same religion.

This is clearly evident in Christianity: the Crusades undertaken by our Christian ancestors are a far cry from the ecumenism and respect for all religions that prevail today.

Certainly, the Pope would not proclaim a Crusade with the cry "Deus vult", as his distant predecessor Urban II did.

Similarly, whereas in the distant past the Holy Inquisition persecuted all forms of heresy, the Catholic Church has now become a champion of religious freedom.

In the modern world, economic considerations concerning the balance between all citizens have instead assumed great importance.

It is part of human nature, and of social life, that those who can give should give, and those in need should receive. Moreover, wealth is always guaranteed by society as a whole; without society, nobody could be wealthy, as is the case among primitive peoples. All democracies have created advanced welfare systems by adopting progressive taxation.

The contribution of the individual to the group—and therefore taxes as well—is one of the fundamental foundations of society. Voluntary charity also exists and can accomplish great things, but a compulsory tax system is nevertheless necessary; taxation cannot be voluntary.