> legality is basically the subset of morality that Republicans and Democrats can agree on
I largely agree with this, except when we start looking at uncharted territory.
Generally speaking, we are (legally) free to do as we please. As people do things we (as a sufficiently large group) disagree with, laws may eventually pass to restrict the freedoms to do those things.
Just because something hasn't been codified into law, doesn't necessarily mean it's not likely to be largely condemned, it could just mean nobody anticipated anyone actually doing the thing prior to it happening.
Combine that with a legal system that works on the letter of the law, rather than the intent of the law, and incentives can (and when capital is concerned, often do) skew away from morality entirely.
Consider that the falsehood that a corporation CEO has a fiduciary duty to maximize profits for shareholders at all costs continues to perpetuate, for a consideration of the mindset that simply works on the basis that if it hasn't been outlawed, then it's okay.
I largely agree with this, except when we start looking at uncharted territory.
Generally speaking, we are (legally) free to do as we please. As people do things we (as a sufficiently large group) disagree with, laws may eventually pass to restrict the freedoms to do those things.
Just because something hasn't been codified into law, doesn't necessarily mean it's not likely to be largely condemned, it could just mean nobody anticipated anyone actually doing the thing prior to it happening.
Combine that with a legal system that works on the letter of the law, rather than the intent of the law, and incentives can (and when capital is concerned, often do) skew away from morality entirely.
Consider that the falsehood that a corporation CEO has a fiduciary duty to maximize profits for shareholders at all costs continues to perpetuate, for a consideration of the mindset that simply works on the basis that if it hasn't been outlawed, then it's okay.