It’s obvious that they are different. In the old understanding of things, you sometimes have to do illegal stuff when it’s moral. Enemies have to be fought, laws have to be broken before changed. At the same time laws were perceived as something specific and precise.
Now there’s some weird perception that all laws have an inertia of moral virtue because of being descended from popular will or something like that. At the same time it’s a fuzzy, almost mystical, entity and asking “why the hell should I do that” from authority is like attacking that entity. In the old understanding of things it wasn’t. So laws have become fuzzy, and it has become a small sacrilege to question them.
Which is what always happens, a thing perceived strictly and literally will always run into contradictions resolved outside it, and such a resolution is a normal process. Like with segregation.
And if you make an outside resolution absolutely impossible, the thing will become fuzzy.
MITM0@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
The same can be said about ethics; to an elite, opressing the working class is ethical