For any law to be a "law", there must be a standard. We (the people) put lawmakers in power to enact laws instead of each person being a law unto themselves (each has their own standard of what's tight ans what's wrong). These lawmakers create the standard. When they divert away from that standard, we (the people) have fits (for examples, just watch the nightly news).
For some reason, your question made me think of part of the Libertarian political platform -- from what I remember (and I liked the concept) - - if you're not hurting anyone else, it should be legal.
Or something like that. :)
This post was edited by WelbyQuentin at August 27, 2019 3:41 PM MDT
I looked up a list of his writings. I don't think I've read anything by him. I recognize his name but haven't read him. I did like the movie "Starship Troopers," though (if that is a movie based on that title that was on the list).
The movie was actually better than the novel. I read everything he wrote, and some twice.
This post was edited by Element 99 at August 27, 2019 5:58 PM MDT
It is not the duty of lawmakers (in a republic or democracy) to define morality, but as public servants to speak for the morals and values held by their constituents.
In a theocracy, as one example, the laws and morals are imposed by the same authority(s).
This post was edited by Don Barzini at August 27, 2019 8:23 PM MDT
If a more powerful person or agency takes obvious, unfair advantage of a weaker one, and there is a third Most powerful person or agency working pursuant to a mandate from the wider community, it is good and just that that Most powerful agency should take action to correct the situation, demand restitution, and implement laws to prevent similar situations from arising in the future. It has a moral obligation to do so, in my opinion. A good example is the virtual enslavement of children during the industrial revolution. If you don't put limits on what people can to to each other, you have slavery.
WelbyQuentin 