There can be odd disconnects between what people think is okay versus how they'd vote if they had a chance to vote on an actual law, though. For example, the number of people in favor of legalizing marijuana is quite a bit smaller than the number of people who don't honestly think it's a bit deal if you smoke marijuana. For various reasons, a lot of people are in the category of: don't think it's a big deal, but still don't want it to be legal.
The "number of people in favor of legalizing marijuana" is a fundamentallly different group than the "people who don't honestly think it's a bit deal if you smoke marijuana".
There may be some overlap, but there are also people who support decriminalization, not legalization, and some who support neither.
Well I don't know, what happened to slavery in the south of the united states?
Just because it's supported by "the public" does not mean it's good, smart or of any interest. Case in point, "the public" seems to like Fox News and Jersey Shore a lot.
I never thought popularity was a good indicator of quality or correctness (though popularity may tell you what you need to be popular, that is a different issue), and that "the public"'s view aligns with mine on this topic is irrelevant, what is needed is still actual arguments.
The only interest here is that it could make discussions on public policy re. piracy easier to have. Not holding my breath though.
No, that's not my objection to slavery. That's my objection to using support of slavery as a false example to discredit the idea that popularity can be used as (sloppy) gauge of morality.
That's different; that only happens when you have ignorant, unthinking people who do not critically examine their own ethics when to do so would challenge social norms and/or their own material interests.
