On 12/09/2007, Ray Saintonge
<saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:
Thomas Dalton wrote
Of course, morality is an entirely subjective
concept. At the time,
slavery was generally considered moral, since the people being
enslaved were considered lesser beings. It was when those morals
changed that people started to call for abolition. The law generally
follows morals, but lags behind a little. During the gap between
morals changing and the law catching up you can have immoral laws.
The law doesn't necessarily follow morality; it often reflects the
self-interest of those in power.
Well, yes, I forgot to mention I was talking about in a Democracy.
Generally, laws in a Democracy do follow morals - sometimes it
requires waiting for the next election before the laws are updated,
but it does happen eventually (assuming it's sufficiently important to
people).
One mustn't allow "Democracy" to lure one into a false sense
of security.
People in power are resilient and can adapt to changing times -- much
more so than the lumpen electorate. What goes on at the upper political
levels tends to be beyond the grasp and imagination of most voters who
are morally guided by an assumption of good faith. Lobbyists and their
ilk like to maintain good relations with both sides of the political
fence, knowing that their favourites will not always remain in power.
To adapt the words of a famous Canadian third-party politician, T. C.
Douglas: When all the candidates are either blue cats or red cats, who
are the mice going to vote for?
Ec