[ordu]

> Laws that go against human nature fight an uphill battle

I'm reluctant to name it "human nature", but let it be.

Most laws are needed to restrict "human nature". Moral codes exist to restrict "human nature". So it is the fate of a law.

> The function of the group is to survive as a group; it will do whatever it takes to achieve that.

It is an oversimplification I believe. Groups have very different goals, and sometimes money is more important then group existence. Groups can accept additional existential risks to increase profits, in such cases it means money has more importance for a group than its existence.

[gcanyon]

> simplifying: "laws and moral codes exist to restrict 'human nature'"

I strongly disagree with that. Laws (and moral codes) exist to codify the general, agreed-upon human nature. They therefore "restrict," as you say, a subset of people whose internal moral compass is broken.

To pick the most extreme example: most people don't need a law, or even a moral code, to not kill other people. We all (for some large and growing, but not 100%) agreed that killing is wrong, and most of us do not need the threat of a murder trial to talk us out of killing someone who cuts in front of us at the fast food line. To be clear, not 100% of us, but more than 50%, and I hope in many places, much more than 50% of us.

For other, less extreme crimes, the percent of people in consensus might be lower. But even for something like speeding on the highway I think human nature is, on average, a limiting factor more than laws or moral codes, rather than being an uncontrolled source of chaos reined in by law.

People (on average) drive maybe 60-80 mph on the highway (depending on the highway -- looking at you, Montana). If there were no speed limit at all, that wouldn't jump that much: the average speed on the autobahn is apparently 125kph, or 78mph.

Everyone's human nature is, on average, reasonably aligned, and laws tend to reflect that average.

[ordu]

It is the reason I do not like the term "human nature". Is it a human nature to kill other humans? Are moral considerations a part of a human nature?

> To pick the most extreme example: most people don't need a law, or even a moral code, to not kill other people.

How it may be a "nature" if it is artificial? Some cultures routinely eat other people, we do not, how it can be a human nature, if different people coalesce at different "natures"?

There is a famous debate "nature vs. nurture", and I believe it is unwise to call something to be a nature thing, if it is really a nurture thing. It just bring a lot of confusion.

> Everyone's human nature is, on average, reasonably aligned, and laws tend to reflect that average.

Eww... averages... I believe it is impossible to have a meaningful definition of an "average person". There was a story of average pilot[1], and later of a search for average american woman (can't find a link). You cannot have meaningful averages in highly multi-dimensional spaces.

But if we rephrase it referring to a social norms, it could make sense, but then comes a question what is the difference between human nature and social norms?

[1] https://worldwarwings.com/no-such-thing-as-an-average-pilot-...

[em-bee]

i very strongly agree. human nature is often used as an excuse for bad behavior. even stuff as seemingly benign as "boys will be boys". pretty much every behavior can be changed with proper training and good role models.

every human has the potential to be a great person. and only education is needed to enable that greatness and allow humanity to benefit from it.

[pixl97]

So the issue with laws is they are many types. Criminal, civil, statutory. Defining how the power grid works, what frequency it runs, what devices can be plugged into it so they don't explode is a set of codes/laws. If you violate those there are other sets of civil/criminal codes that can be used to remediate the situation.

And that's just one facet of our lives. In a low complexity society, especially ones with smaller populations there are typically fewer laws. As society grows, and especially as the populations begin to specialize formalized laws are a natural outcome. The farmer, the taylor, and the brickmaker all need common set of rules for expectation in things like trade and debt that get very hard to coordinate as population size grows.

[gcanyon]

Sure, I'm not arguing that laws aren't needed, just that they're generally more descriptive than prescriptive. I think the same applies even in cases where there is a clear tension between two direct parties, e.g. trade and debt as you describe: laws are a recognition of what most people (for some value of "most") think is fair and reasonable.

In short, laws are not (generally) handed down by some authority, against the will of the majority of the people -- at least not in non-dictatorships.