> As a moral relativist, I would say that because law defines morality, it makes right by definition. But at the same time, there are many moralities, and so, m

> As a moral relativist, I would say that because law defines morality, it makes right by definition. But at the same time, there are many moralities, and so, many rights. if law defines morality then we are unable to say any law is immoral. We are also unable to make laws on the basis of our moral judgment because that would be circular reasoning. > It's that the author decided to take a stance already, and I'm not finding a good justification for one over the other. The justification is that in the author's view, property rights are a social technology for allocating scarce resources and i.p. are not scarce (in the economic sense). > But this is the value judgement I'm questioning. Apart from situations where it would be destabilizing due to different values of the people, why not? There are at least two reasons. One, what you mentioned: different people have different moral judgment but must live together using the same law. So law must account for different people's morals without favoring one over the other any more than necessary. Secondly, since we can't test moral judgments in a laboratory in order to give them objective reality, we must approach moral questions with humility and that leads us to refrain from using the coercive power of the state to enforce our values on other people when possible. > And since the article already lays out two fully destabilizing options, why not choose the option that aligns with their values better? I'm not convinced that both options are equally destabilizing. thanks for your thoughtful reply.