the difference is that laws don;t make some claim to universality

Yeet

rights are a decalogue that is mutable

Mental gymnastics cancer

meaning it's not a decalogue

Then consider them laws for government

Because that is what they functionally *are*

cool, but then they are not some special cathegory

Correct

which is my point

All they are is laws

They are just distinct from laws in impact and scale

But they are effectively laws, yes

and laws need justification by some moral imperative

No, they do not

then ur laws are evil by definition

which is rather obviously a problem

I disagree with your values, you're just calling me different

I'm calling you incorrect

According to your system of beliefs, sure

morality is the theory of action

some actions are good some are bad

you can argue about lesser evils

and whatnot

but it's pretty clear that the goal is to minimize them and try for the good

But I can pass a law without taking any of this into account

if your laws have no moral justification, they are wither good on accident, or evil

the way republics justify law

being non-evil

is by binding good to the will of the people

saying basically that the ppl is to be the arbiter of good and evil

which is dubious

This is exactly like a pointless discussion a few days ago because morals are subjective

(though practical)

if morality is indeed subjective

then all of this is meaningless

and all there is is Foucault

and power dynamics

which incidentally means that the far left is correct

them or the actual, unironic Evolafags

not sure which