Something being "the law" or "against the law" doesn't automatically make it right or wrong.

The statement in the title seems obvious to many, as it should. After all, there are always debates and disagreements as to which laws are "working" or not, which laws should be passed or not, which ones should be repealed etc. Humans are imperfect, and as such, will advocate for and pass imperfect or even dangerous laws. Despite this fact, a lot of people tend to view and refer to the individual laws passed wherever they live as "the law", suggesting that it is legitimate to enforce all laws solely because they are enacted as law.

In Nazi Germany, it was "against the law" to murder. It was also "against the law" to aid a Jew in hiding trying to escape persecution. Both of these laws are lumped together in the term "the law", yet one makes sense and the other is immoral and oppressive. This example is just one of many that demonstrates how "the law" can be either good or bad, which means that someone isn't necessarily a bad person for disobeying bad laws or a good person for following or enforcing unjust laws. Those in Nazi Germany who broke "the law" to give shelter to Jews avoiding persecution were good people for protecting them against unspeakable evil, and those "law-abiding citizens" who obeyed the government and turned over Jews to the authorities were complicit in helping the Nazis commit inhumane atrocities.

While many current governments do not resemble Nazi Germany, the nature and concept of law has stayed consistent throughout its inception; one of the key principles being that whatever is law must be obeyed, regardless of any valid criticism or arguments against specific laws embodied in "the law". However, if some laws are imperfect and even result in negative consequences because the humans who write them are imperfect, why must every law be respected and obeyed? The phrase "It's the law" or "It's against the law" in regards to why someone should or shouldn't do something is not an argument, since it would imply that everything that is "the law" is good, and everything that is against "the law" is bad. In short, answering the question of why someone has to or can't do something with "It's the law" or "It's against the law" is the same as saying "Because the politicians who passed the law say so". Even a young child is usually unsatisfied with the response "Because I/We/They etc. say so", as it is easy to realize there is no actual substance, reason(s), argument or answer in that reply.

Inevitably, after reading the above, some people will ask "How could you believe the law means nothing? You don't think it should be illegal to murder, steal and assault?" The point I am trying to make is that murder, theft and assault are immoral irrespective of whether or not it is against "the law" (Obviously there are more actions and behaviors that are immoral; I am just using these three as examples). Politicians are just people, and the laws they write can't determine truth or morality any more than they can determine what 1+1 equals. In other words, 1+1=2 because 1+1=2, not because any particular person or group of people (obviously including politicians) understand, claim or agree that 1+1=2. Again, the same holds true for morality: murder, theft and assault are immoral because of the harm those actions cause to others, not because politicians, you or I personally believe that those actions are immoral (which I do). Our beliefs and understanding of reality don't create or shape reality, it is the other way around: reality shapes our perceptions and understanding of it.

To conclude, "the law" should not be seen or used as an indicator, guide or determinant as to what is right or wrong and how people should act and behave. People shouldn't attack others because it's immoral, not necessarily just because some politicians write down that it's "illegal", and people have the right to defend themselves from aggressors regardless of what "the law" says. In addition, people have the right and moral duty to disobey any law that is immoral (such as oppressive laws like The Fugitive Slave Act in the 1800's in the U.S. and laws restricting Jews' social participation in Nazi Germany), rendering the law's perceived authority useless, as no one has the right to enforce laws that are immoral.

Please share your thoughts and mention anything you feel I should clarify!

I think the law of the land shapes morality as much as human morality shapes the law, it's very easy to look at some things considered immoral internationally- Being gay, public displays of affection ect ect and see that not everything is universally immoral, or universally illegal.

Morality is something heavily affected by culture and society, which in turn tends to shape the law in a cyclic manner.

I think regardless of right/wrong being a thing inherint to both upbringing and social climate there's not really a way you can just throw laws away and not use them as a guide on how to live your life just purely by the fact that you're bound by them- you're punished if you don't obey them.

If they're unfair, or immoral or whatever it's the right of the citizens to complain and protest until the law is changed, whether this is something minor or some major injustice enshrined in the legal system.
For each example of an atrocity enshrined in law, like slavery or systematic racism, the system you're proposing allows good things to be disregarded based on personal morality. Should I kill, if i don't feel it'd be wrong to kill a certain person, or people of a certain group? If i was raised to believe it was ok, should I do it? Should I steal, because my personal morality rates my own comfort or situation above the property rights of others?

Aliencommander1245 said:

I think the law of the land shapes morality as much as human morality shapes the law

Click to expand...

Sometimes the law reflects morality, sometimes it doesn't. However, it doesn't change or determine morality.

it's very easy to look at some things considered immoral internationally- Being gay, public displays of affection ect ect and see that not everything is universally immoral, or universally illegal.

Morality is something heavily affected by culture and society, which in turn tends to shape the law in a cyclic manner.

Click to expand...

Just because cultures have different views on what is moral doesn't mean morality doesn't exist. If one culture believes slavery is acceptable and another doesn't, does it make slavery okay in the culture that accepts it?

I think regardless of right/wrong being a thing inherint to both upbringing and social climate there's not really a way you can just throw laws away and not use them as a guide on how to live your life just purely by the fact that you're bound by them- you're punished if you don't obey them.

Click to expand...

This is one of the aspects that has to change: people need to stop believing that they need to obey and enforce every law passed by politicians just because they wrote it down on paper. They have to actually think about what the specific laws are individually and whether it is fair to uphold them. Once this occurs, "the law" will become irrelevant and be replaced with actual moral principles such as the nonaggression principle.

If they're unfair, or immoral or whatever it's the right of the citizens to complain and protest until the law is changed, whether this is something minor or some major injustice enshrined in the legal system.

Click to expand...

If a government is being oppressive, do you honestly think it will care what the people think if all they do is complain while treating the government as if it's legitimate? I don't believe the solution to oppression is standing around waving signs and shouting slogans while the government violently imprisons and even kills some dissidents. People need to be willing to forcibly resist evil to succeed, because evil never hesitates to use force itself.

For each example of an atrocity enshrined in law, like slavery or systematic racism, the system you're proposing allows good things to be disregarded based on personal morality. Should I kill, if i don't feel it'd be wrong to kill a certain person, or people of a certain group? If i was raised to believe it was ok, should I do it? Should I steal, because my personal morality rates my own comfort or situation above the property rights of others?

Click to expand...

I covered this in my original post, but I will address your specific examples: even if you or I believe it's okay to kill or steal, killing and stealing is still wrong because you are harming and infringing on another person's rights by committing these acts; our personal views don't create or change what is moral. Everyone has a right to defend themselves from killers, thieves and any other aggressors inflicting harm.

Strange how I feel like we've been down this road before.

Your position would make a bit more sense if the law defined morality but as you later pointed out, it's the other way around. Morality defines the law. The law is not a rigid and unchanging structure and will gradually change over the years to reflect the moral beliefs of the society bound to it.

Furthermore, morality is not universal. Different cultures and societies will inevitably have different morals. Homosexuality is illegal in most of the middle east because it is considered immoral there. Does that make it okay by our western standards? Hell no. However those countries are not bound to our morals and as such neither are their laws. If a law fits the morals of the majority of the society it governs then it it cannot be immoral by the very nature of morality. If the law does not fit with the established morals of the society it governs, then and only then is that law immoral and in a democratic society that law will inevitably be changed by a government who is slave to the votes of the people.

Of course, none of this changes that if you live within a society, you are subject to its laws because your agreement to being subject to those laws is implicit in your presence in that society. If you don't like a law your options are to campaign to change it or to move to where the law is different. Even in Nazi Germany where the law was immoral, by going against the law you would be acknowledging that you may face consequences. It's as simple as that.

I dont think morality can be synonymous with the law. Breaking the law isn't morally wrong depending on the law broken.

Laws can be based off of some moral code, but not all people follow any one moral code.

The best bet to try to and unite the two is common law, where laws are based on the common culture and (at the very least) the majority people consented to it at some point in time.

gimmepie said:

Strange how I feel like we've been down this road before.

Click to expand...

Indeed.

Your position would make a bit more sense if the law defined morality but as you later pointed out, it's the other way around. Morality defines the law. The law is not a rigid and unchanging structure and will gradually change over the years to reflect the moral beliefs of the society bound to it.

Click to expand...

Society changing its views and beliefs related to morality doesn't change morality itself. To use the example of slavery again, in the southern US during the 1800's, it was considered acceptable to own slaves, and the law reflected this sentiment. The fact that the law permitted slave owners to own slaves didn't make it moral to do so; slavery is wrong no matter what is "the law".

Furthermore, morality is not universal. Different cultures and societies will inevitably have different morals. Homosexuality is illegal in most of the middle east because it is considered immoral there. Does that make it okay by our western standards? Hell no. However those countries are not bound to our morals and as such neither are their laws.

Click to expand...

Unless you believe that homosexuality is both immoral and not immoral, which makes no sense, then you believe that either the Middle East's views on homosexuality are wrong, or the West's views on homosexuality are wrong.

I mentioned this before in my reply to Aliencommander1245 , but since it's relevant to this point I'll reiterate it:

Philosophizer said:

Just because cultures have different views on what is moral doesn't mean morality doesn't exist. If one culture believes slavery is acceptable and another doesn't, does it make slavery okay in the culture that accepts it?

Click to expand...

To use your example of homosexuality, do you believe it's immoral in the Middle East? If you had to live in the Middle East for some reason, would you suddenly look down upon gays because "the law" does?

If a law fits the morals of the majority of the society it governs then it it cannot be immoral by the very nature of morality.

Click to expand...

It can if the majority of society believes something immoral is moral, which has been the case throughout history.

If the law does not fit with the established morals of the society it governs, then and only then is that law immoral and in a democratic society that law will inevitably be changed by a government who is slave to the votes of the people.

Click to expand...

The majority of society believing something is moral or immoral doesn't make it so, and the majority of society advocating for immoral laws don't make those laws okay.

Of course, none of this changes that if you live within a society, you are subject to its laws because your agreement to being subject to those laws is implicit in your presence in that society.

Click to expand...

Yeah, as if people were given a choice to begin with (they weren't).

If you don't like a law your options are to campaign to change it or to move to where the law is different.

Click to expand...

Or you can stop believing you have to obey unjust laws just because some group of people called politicians wrote down on pieces of paper that you have to. Hint: you don't. Sure you might get punished, but it doesn't make you a bad person; it makes the enforcers of the unjust laws bad people.

Even in Nazi Germany where the law was immoral, by going against the law you would be acknowledging that you may face consequences. It's as simple as that.

Click to expand...

Obviously, but as I just referenced above, people shouldn't have to face punishment for breaking unjust laws, as they are doing nothing wrong. This is the insanity of the belief in "government", "authority" and "law": as you just said, even if the law is wrong, it is enforced for no other reason but the fact that it was written by those in "authority" and called "law". There is no real justification in enforcing immoral laws; calling them "law" doesn't make them moral.

gimmepie said:

Strange how I feel like we've been down this road before.

Your position would make a bit more sense if the law defined morality but as you later pointed out, it's the other way around. Morality defines the law. The law is not a rigid and unchanging structure and will gradually change over the years to reflect the moral beliefs of the society bound to it.

Furthermore, morality is not universal. Different cultures and societies will inevitably have different morals. Homosexuality is illegal in most of the middle east because it is considered immoral there. Does that make it okay by our western standards? Hell no. However those countries are not bound to our morals and as such neither are their laws. If a law fits the morals of the majority of the society it governs then it it cannot be immoral by the very nature of morality. If the law does not fit with the established morals of the society it governs, then and only then is that law immoral and in a democratic society that law will inevitably be changed by a government who is slave to the votes of the people.

Of course, none of this changes that if you live within a society, you are subject to its laws because your agreement to being subject to those laws is implicit in your presence in that society. If you don't like a law your options are to campaign to change it or to move to where the law is different. Even in Nazi Germany where the law was immoral, by going against the law you would be acknowledging that you may face consequences. It's as simple as that.

Click to expand...

Morality is universal, but outlooks on morality are not universal. A murder in a society that accepts murder does not make murder okay. To them, murder is okay, but to us it is not. That is outlook. Murder is either universally wrong or not.

That being said, legality does not equate morality. The law could reflect a particular moral code, but this does not mean the population subscribes to this moral code.

I think you are on point that the law can be defined by morality in accordance with the common culture. Especially with democracy, where as you said, most (if not all) voters have similar moral beliefs (with exceptions of course).

Sorry for the lack of a detailed response or quotes but both of you have the same problem and that is that you have a very self-centred understanding of morality, and therefore a wrong understanding of morality. Morality is not some rigid construct built into humanity, it varies by nation and culture. That's why something considered moral in the West can be considered immoral in Asia or the Middle East.

For that reason the oppressive laws that are immoral according to our morality standards are perfectly legitimate according to there's.


As for not being able to be punished for breaking unjust laws, well firstly because the law changes to match culture the chances of there being any truly unjust laws in a democratic nation are infinitesimal anyway. But again, by being in the place where those laws are in effect you are implicitly agreeing to abide by them and therefore have no place to complain if you are punished for breaking those laws. Morality doesn't even come into it there.

In my personal opinion, the only thing I consider a crime, is an act that results in an injured party, or damage or loss to property, basically, a person who has been wronged. Anything else is simply a method to control the population, and to profit off of victim-less crimes.

Seat belts, for instance, keep you safe in the case of an accident, but not wearing a seatbelt puts basically only you at risk, and fining someone for not wearing a ticket is fining them, essentially, for their bodily autonomy.

It gets a little more gray area with things like drugs. Sure, commonly you are only hurting yourself, but there are also countless cases of people injuring and killing people under the influence of substances, so it gets trickier, when judgement comes into play, and the safety of nearby people.

gimmepie said:

Sorry for the lack of a detailed response or quotes but both of you have the same problem and that is that you have a very self-centred understanding of morality, and therefore a wrong understanding of morality. Morality is not some rigid construct built into humanity, it varies by nation and culture. That's why something considered moral in the West can be considered immoral in Asia or the Middle East.

Click to expand...

For that reason the oppressive laws that are immoral according to our morality standards are perfectly legitimate according to there's.


As for not being able to be punished for breaking unjust laws, well firstly because the law changes to match culture the chances of there being any truly unjust laws in a democratic nation are infinitesimal anyway. But again, by being in the place where those laws are in effect you are implicitly agreeing to abide by them and therefore have no place to complain if you are punished for breaking those laws. Morality doesn't even come into it there.[/QUOTE]

Define unjust. Also I disagree... Hitler was voted in legally (from there he took power), and the US has had many, many unjust laws. Thousands I would say. Im sure its similar to other countries as well.

I think you are right in select situations where the citizens consent to the laws, but in a modern context, I dont believe this is the case. For the purposes of clarity, what kind of governments would you say are consensual?

I think the most common definition of a "consensual Government" is one that allows the governed to choose their rulers and take part in its deliberations, and which allows strong institutions to oversee it to make sure it doesn't break any rules or tramples on people's rights, and offers them ways to obtain redress and even depose said Government peacefully and orderly if such a thing happens.

___________________

As Philosophizer and BadSheep know, I'm on Pie's side here. "Morality" is not written in stone- is the death penalty moral? It's killing a person, after all. Is it any different from murder? Even between Western societies, with similar cultures, there is disagreement- some think so, some don't. And sadly, there is no eternal, universal rulebook about what's moral and what isn't. As such, it's up to each society to decide the specifics, through laws. Laws do change as the vision of "morality" changes- in 1975, homosexuality was a crime in Spain, because the Catholic morality that was in power back then said so. But things changed swiftly and 30 years later, married gay people can now adopt children. Which option was "moral" and which wasn't? It's up to the people you ask- 30 years ago, people would have said that criminalisation was the moral option, nowadays around 90% support full rights. Laws change because society changes, because humans change.

And following the main idea behind Philosophizer's arguments: something being a law doesn't mean that it is "moral" or even right. It does mean that the particular society that enacted it thinks that, at that point in time, it is the right and moral option. If you don't agree, it's up to you to support the law being reformed, and to protest against it. But if you disobey it, don't expect "I don't think that law is moral" to work as a "get out of jail" card, because, in a society, your actions don't affect only you- they affect other people as well, who might not share your views. To solve those disputes is, precisely, why laws exist.

Is this turning into a Compact Theory vs. Contract Theory of Government debate?

Im of course a fan of Compact Theory, which can be summed up in the statement "what can be voluntarily entered into, can be voluntarily exited." And no, I'm not an anarchist. I just think government should be treated like economic transactions with certain necessary differences, such enforcement of contracts and laws. Stuff private agencies can't preform at the moment. In addition, I think compact theory is preferable because it stops other individuals from saying what I can and can't do to an extent. But of course we had the Civil War, so neither Compact or Contract Theories are viable. The Federal government ultimately has control.

To clarify my earlier point, laws DO reflect culture, but reflect culture with increased accuracy with increased decentralization. I think its hardly fair to say a simple majority federal-level vote can somehow reflect the minority. I mean, we literally had a Civil War because of this.

Three things come to my mind when it comes to this topic: pedophilia, incest, and bestiality. If we have the right to disobey the laws that consider these three "illegal," then that's telling us it's ok to have romantic relationships with children, animals, and our siblings regardless if they can't consent. However, we have scientific reasons why these three relationships would not benefit our survival as a species, thus creating laws to make them "illegal" without using any religious reasons. Unfortunately, these laws aren't being enforced enough despite the existence of the NSA to spy on everyone's internet to see if they're breaking any laws by going to porn websites that hosts either of these three relationships.

I honestly couldn't have said it better than Ivysaur.

gimmepie said:

But again, by being in the place where those laws are in effect you are implicitly agreeing to abide by them and therefore have no place to complain if you are punished for breaking those laws. Morality doesn't even come into it there.

Click to expand...

I believe I already addressed your other arguments you made in your latest post, because they are the same as the ones in your first post, so I will just reply to what I quoted above:

Using that logic, why do people have a right to protest any laws politicians pass in the first place? After all, voters and society in general are "implicitly agreeing" that the politicians voted in have the right to pass laws because they were "democratically elected" and are choosing to live under the jurisdiction of the government.

Ivysaur said:

I think the most common definition of a "consensual Government" is one that allows the governed to choose their rulers and take part in its deliberations, and which allows strong institutions to oversee it to make sure it doesn't break any rules or tramples on people's rights, and offers them ways to obtain redress and even depose said Government peacefully and orderly if such a thing happens.

Click to expand...

If the government infringes on the peoples' rights, should the people wait until the next elections to "peacefully depose" the politicians, or do they have the right to forcibly resist the enforcement of laws that violate human rights?

As Philosophizer and BadSheep know, I'm on Pie's side here...

Click to expand...

Then please read my above responses and examples I gave if you're expecting a rebuttal from me, as I have already provided one regarding this issue.

And following the main idea behind Philosophizer's arguments: something being a law doesn't mean that it is "moral" or even right. It does mean that the particular society that enacted it thinks that, at that point in time, it is the right and moral option. If you don't agree, it's up to you to support the law being reformed, and to protest against it. But if you disobey it, don't expect "I don't think that law is moral" to work as a "get out of jail" card, because, in a society, your actions don't affect only you- they affect other people as well, who might not share your views. To solve those disputes is, precisely, why laws exist.

Click to expand...

Laws don't solve any disputes. You just mentioned they can be reformed, changed, repealed etc., so all it creates is an incentive for people to endlessly fight over who gets to impose their version of morality over the rest, which is why "the law" hardly creates any meaningful and long-lasting consensus within a society.

Pinkie-Dawn said:

Three things come to my mind when it comes to this topic: pedophilia, incest, and bestiality. If we have the right to disobey the laws that consider these three "illegal," then that's telling us it's ok to have romantic relationships with children, animals, and our siblings regardless if they can't consent. However, we have scientific reasons why these three relationships would not benefit our survival as a species, thus creating laws to make them "illegal" without using any religious reasons. Unfortunately, these laws aren't being enforced enough despite the existence of the NSA to spy on everyone's internet to see if they're breaking any laws by going to porn websites that hosts either of these three relationships.

Click to expand...

I never stated it was okay to disobey all laws, especially not the three you reference here. If you read my original post closely, you will see I was referring to unjust laws.

@Philosophizer

I know I'm "on your side" or whatever, but I have to disagree. The law does solve disputes. While court systems may be inefficient and backed up (in the US private arbitration groups are gaining steam because of this), the laws are created to provide boundaries. Now, I'm talking about laws that relate to property, relations, marriage, custody, and crime of course.

As a sort of "proof" for this, necessity is a prerequisite of government. Such as disorder, too much criminality, low-trust, hard economic times, foreign or domestic threats, etc. And/or disputes. As a result, a government is created for order and balance, and to function, government creates and enforces laws for this purpose.

While a government's effectiveness may be lacking, laws exist because of disputes. So I have to agree with Ivysaur.

To further comment on your point, legal precedences are set, so in that sense, the law remains the same or similar throughout time. This is also why we have constitutions.

But I have to agree with you that voters are very fickle and vote with their feelings and/or pocketbooks, which is certainly an issue. This is partly why I dislike democracy.

@everyone

The words "just" and "unjust" are going around a lot. Can we reach a consensus on a definition? I know its pretty subjective, but we should at least do something. What is a just law? What is an unjust law?

Has anyone heard of the Overlapping Consensus by John Rawls in his book "A Theory of Justice?" I think it really relates here. Basically, the overlapping consensus is the moral common ground between voters in a country. Anything outside the common ground is not considered.

Philosophizer said:

I believe I already addressed your other arguments you made in your latest post, because they are the same as the ones in your first post, so I will just reply to what I quoted above:

Using that logic, why do people have a right to protest any laws politicians pass in the first place? After all, voters and society in general are "implicitly agreeing" that the politicians voted in have the right to pass laws because they were "democratically elected" and are choosing to live under the jurisdiction of the government.

Click to expand...

For the same reason that morality varies across cultures. Morality is neither rigid not universal, it's flexible and changes over time. So for the law to remain moral, it needs to change along with society. A citizen's ability to vote helps ensure the appropriate changes take place when they should - they hold the government and the law accountable.

As for just/unjust, the literal definition of just is "morally right or fair" with unjust being the opposite. So I figure a basic definition for a just law that we can all agree on is "a law that reflects the moral beliefs of the majority of the citizens bound by it and does not unfairly/disproportionately target any specific group." Or something like that anyway.

gimmepie said:

For the same reason that morality varies across cultures. Morality is neither rigid not universal, it's flexible and changes over time. So for the law to remain moral, it needs to change along with society. A citizen's ability to vote helps ensure the appropriate changes take place when they should - they hold the government and the law accountable.

Click to expand...

Moral codes are universal. Just because different people subjectively perceive morality differently does not mean morality is not universal. The issue is that an action, thought, or behavior cannot be both moral AND immoral at the same time. Therefore, morality is universal.

Morality is also not a natural law, which (as Einstein proves) can be relative or universal. Morality, on the other hand, is not tangible and does not exist. Like the alphabet or numbers. But the number 1 in the US does not equal 2 in Japan. As a result, Morality is not bound by natural laws, and thus, is not necessarily relative.

If morality is universal, morality is objective. Because the notion of subjective moralities inevitably conflict and moral principles are universal, morality must be objective. We just have to discover this objective morality, but that is an entirely different discussion.

gimmepie said:

As for just/unjust, the literal definition of just is "morally right or fair" with unjust being the opposite. So I figure a basic definition for a just law that we can all agree on is "a law that reflects the moral beliefs of the majority of the citizens bound by it and does not unfairly/disproportionately target any specific group." Or something like that anyway.

Click to expand...

Thats fair, but how are we defining a majority? If we have 100 people in a particular geographical region and 51 say something is moral, but the other 49 people say its not moral, what is to be done? And to extend the question a bit, at what point does something become just?

I have another question, but lets just get this one settled first to avoid confusion.

BadSheep said:

Moral codes are universal. Just because different people subjectively perceive morality differently does not mean morality is not universal. The issue is that an action, thought, or behavior cannot be both moral AND immoral at the same time. Therefore, morality is universal.

Morality is also not a natural law, which (as Einstein proves) can be relative or universal. Morality, on the other hand, is not tangible and does not exist. Like the alphabet or numbers. But the number 1 in the US does not equal 2 in Japan. As a result, Morality is not bound by natural laws, and thus, is not necessarily relative.

If morality is universal, morality is objective. Because the notion of subjective moralities inevitably conflict and moral principles are universal, morality must be objective. We just have to discover this objective morality, but that is an entirely different discussion.

Click to expand...

This is just so backwards. The subjectivity of morality is exactly why it is not universal.

Thats fair, but how are we defining a majority? If we have 100 people in a particular geographical region and 51 say something is moral, but the other 49 people say its not moral, what is to be done? And to extend the question a bit, at what point does something become just?

I have another question, but lets just get this one settled first to avoid confusion.

Click to expand...

Then the majority gets their law past but the minority are free to try and change the mind of parts of the majority, thus shifting the balance and eventually allowing for the law to change to fit the new majority.

gimmepie said:

This is just so backwards. The subjectivity of morality is exactly why it is not universal.

Click to expand...

The subjectivity of morality is contradictory. If I subjectively think that eating cookies is immoral, and you think that it is moral, this is a contradiction. Cookies cannot be both immoral or moral at the same time. Therefore, it is objective. For further proof, a principle must be consistently applied, and it is impossible to consistently apply subjective morality because people's subjective morality will either conflict with each others' or with their own. Like a contradictory verse in a religious text.

You simply can't have multiple contradictory truths at one time.

To clarify, I said subjectively perceiving morality. That does not mean that I think morality is subjective. It means that people have subjective opinions and ideas, but that does not mean morality is subjective. Just as how I can conjecture or think that the number of people that died in 2016 was "x." The number may have been "x," but statistics can show that it actually was "y."

gimmepie said:

Then the majority gets their law past but the minority are free to try and change the mind of parts of the majority, thus shifting the balance and eventually allowing for the law to change to fit the new majority.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, that is not always the case.

Some examples:

The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 changed immigration demographics dramatically, so there were more immigrants that would vote Democrat instead of Republican.

The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 pardoned a whole bunch of illegal immigrants that moved to California, and since, the state has only voted Democrat. Ironically, this was signed into law by Ronald Reagan.

Gerrymandering in the US is pretty bad. While both parties do it, the Republicans are slightly more notorious for doing so. This can skew elections.

Republicans try to make voting more difficult for lower class individuals, which restricts the voting population, thus helping them. Democrats try to make it easier to vote for lower class individuals, which expands the voting population, thus helping them.

The welfare state, medicare, medicaid, and other subsidies to citizens (without arguing their economic benefits or deficits) creates a significant conflict of interest ignorant of the good of the nation over the individual. This is not to say that welfare is bad. Im not making an opinion here. For sake of argument, it could very well be a great thing. What I'm saying is that the process of voting for these policies ignore the economic impact as a whole and focus on the individual.
really late edit: this can also work in reverse. people not on government programs or dont have government jobs are more likely to oppose these policies. Especially if they are rich. Still a conflict of interest.

Other conflicts of interest would be wealthy individuals and wealthy corporations have the power to lobby members of Congress to help pass legislation that will benefit them. Or turn regulations that would hurt them into regulatory captures, where the regulations benefit them.

I can list more conflict of interest examples here.

To generalize the conflict of interest point- people vote with their pocketbooks, not with the good of the nation in mind.

You should also read up on Public Choice Theory. Its very interesting.

How do we get around economic self-interest in a democracy?