1 (pragmatic vs. morality)

An example of a pragmatic law would be the Brush Clearing law that says that a township can make the execute decision about brush clearing without a referendum, meaning a vote or decision made by the government, not by the people. In this law it says they will finance the collection, transportation, and disposal of leaves in that certain area whether the people approve or not. The people in that area are the ones basically paying for this maneuver because of taxes, so to make a decision without their input is slightly irrational. In other words, this is pragmatic and not quite moral because the authority is not doing what is favorable for the majority and is rather doing it because it makes logistical sense. On the other hand, an example of a law integrating morality and appears as the opposite of pragmatic is the Copyright Restrictions law. This law explains that is is forbidden to take/"borrow" sound recordings after a certain date. If that law is broken it is considered copyright or plagiarism, which is prohibited. This is a considerate and valuable law because it includes the interest of individuals, and the mass. This is not particularly a pragmatic law because they do not need this law copyright law to keep things organized per-say; they could do without it. But it is moral to respect the work of others and provide consequence if that protection is broken. Some might argue we need strictly pragmatic laws and others might argue we need solely moral laws. I think that we need a combination of both types of laws in order to keep society both civil, and humane- both sides are essential. We need laws that the governing body decides and that keep things in order, yet we also need laws that are the opposite. That aren't there only because the government decides, but are rather existent because we the people have elected them and chosen them to be moral and just.