Unfortunately, belief systems that rely on the Just Worth Hypothesis[1] is are very common. Once consequence of this is the very common belief that if a change

Unfortunately, belief systems that rely on the Just Worth Hypothesis[1] is are very common. Once consequence of this is the very common belief that if a change is made to the legal definition of what is "good/moral" vs "evil/immoral", then <i>reality will conform</i> or otherwise adjust itself such to maintain some sort of "balance". You see this at the core of many political and arguments: baning abortions "obvious" stops people from having sex, restricting drugs "obviously" causes people to stop using them, so banning copying and restricting the legal (meaning "moral") methods of use to a DRM scheme "obviously" prevents people from viewing that data for free. Unfortunately, this suggests that it will be very difficult to convince anybody to reverse these beliefs, because it would require them to accept that some particular type of justice is not an inherent property of nature. TL;DR - It is way too common for people to believe that because [they think] reality ought[2] to work in a particular way, they end up blind to what reality actually is. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem