Yeah, that's a good point actually. Perhaps I should be more direct and say that governments are trying to optimise happiness. In this case, abortion is less cl

Yeah, that's a good point actually. Perhaps I should be more direct and say that governments are trying to optimise happiness. In this case, abortion is less clear-cut because there is no good evidence that an unborn baby is conscious, or that it isn't. However, I agree with you that this isn't a good example, and someone has to decide when and if a fetus is a conscious, living being. In a 'perfect' form of the government I described, this issue would be decided by the government based on hard science, so there would be some decision. But this still leaves the question of what position to take in the absence of any conclusive evidence. To extend the flawed-ness: do you think this applies to issues such as homosexuality (to pick the most controversial)? Do you think that all morality should be legislated?