>Laws are passed all of the time that recognize that children aren’t capable of making the same decisions as consenting adults. Well yes, but it shows that con

>Laws are passed all of the time that recognize that children aren’t capable of making the same decisions as consenting adults. Well yes, but it shows that concepts such as "Laws should only be passed when you’re harming someone else." have some variability in how we define harming someone else. So while many people agree with your example, many people also agree with the idea that employing someone for $1/hour is harming them enough that we ban it. Less people agree (I assume), but enough to get laws passed. It shows even given the above standard, reasonable people can disagree resulting in quite different takes on what laws are justified. >If you run a retail shop and see that a parent is spending money frivolously and not feeding their kids are you morally obligated to not sell the item to them? There are so many things that parents can spend money on and not take care of their kids that can be argued about anything. So we thus see there are difference between engaging in behavior (that the majority believes) harms the child directly and engaging in behavior that harms the child indirectly. Is that difference enough to justify a law in one case but not the other? That's another case where reasonable people can disagree and result in quite different views as to what laws are justified. >and let adults make their own decisions. Well, a significant portion enough to change the laws did just recently decide that not all adults are allowed to make such decisions. Once again where reasonable people can, following the original logic, come up with vastly different laws that are justified. My point was that such a standard is ineffective in limiting the scope of laws because of how much of such a standard is left open to interpretation.