Civil Laws and Culture
Civil laws (not those of a political nature) essentially reflect the prevailing ideas of the community, the culture of the people. It is true that laws have an imperative and repressive nature and impose sanctions on those who do not comply, but in reality, everyone, except for a few, acts as their culture dictates and therefore, in effect, does not violate the laws: sanctions are necessary only for exceptions (perhaps 1%, but I would say 1 in 1000).
In general, laws do not strictly follow ethics, which is a personal matter and difficult to control, but they impose norms that, according to prevailing thought, are harmful to the community.
The premise for which the State (or rather, the community) prohibits X is that it believes (rightly or wrongly) that X is harmful to others.
It is often said that we can do anything that does not harm others, or, in more refined terms, that each person's freedom ends where another's begins.
But in reality, every action we take always has consequences for others, except for a few trivialities, even if only a small part of those consequences is regulated by society. I consider this an essential point: everything we do has either a positive or negative impact on others; it is difficult to imagine something that can be done without harming or helping others. All laws (impositions) of society are based on the premise of avoiding harm to the community. If we could do anything that does not infringe on the freedom of others, then we would have to retreat to a deserted island.
Examples would be endless.
If society (in this case, the State) mandates vaccination, it means that it considers it necessary to prevent the contagion of others (whether this is true or not is another issue) and perhaps also the overload of hospitals, not just contagion itself.
If, for example, an individual eats too many fatty foods, they become ill, and the State must cover their medical expenses; moreover, their work is affected, and even more so, their family (the home community) suffers.
Smoking in public is prohibited because it would harm others, but can one smoke alone because they have the right to choose to risk illness? However, one must consider that if the smoker falls ill, it causes harm to the community, which must provide medical care, and above all, the real damage is to their family. From this perspective, the State could even ban smoking in private.
In the case of smoking, it would be difficult to prohibit it entirely: therefore, strong advertising campaigns and price increases on cigarettes are used instead.
Those who were against divorce were not supporters of patriarchy (what nonsense!), but rather people who believed that divorce would be negative for family stability and children's education: whether this is true or not is another issue.
Obviously, laws change with shifts in common mentality.
For example, if at one time the father was the head of the household (he had paternal authority), now there is marital equality (shared parental authority); if in the past, a wife's occasional infidelity was considered more serious than a husband's, in the 1970s, the Constitutional Court abolished such a distinction.
If being gay was once a crime, now it is a crime to discriminate against gays.
Some believe that the sovereignty of the State and its laws should stop at the doorstep of the home (i.e., the family).
But this is not true at all. It does not matter whether an act takes place at home or in public to be considered a crime: murder, abuse, and rape are crimes wherever they occur.
However, it is true that some things are allowed at home but not in public. For example, public nudity is prohibited, but not at home: in reality, it is forbidden to be seen naked, not to be naked. But if it happens at home where others can see (for example, on a terrace), then it is also prohibited there.
Even though, as we said, violations of ethics in themselves cannot be considered crimes (we would say "sin" in religious language), the general framework of civil laws is always related to ethics.
For example, in other times slavery was considered legal, but now it certainly is not, even if it could be beneficial to the community of citizens. And so the State must decide, through its laws, the legality or illegality of slavery, just as it is not allowed to eliminate the sick even if it would be beneficial to society (euthanasia is a separate case since it is requested by the sick person themselves).
However, what the State decides is not necessarily right (Ethical State), but it is simply imposed as if it were.
In every era, then, the question arises of whether one must follow the laws of the State if they appear contrary to one's moral beliefs.
Generally, morality prevails over state law, as in Sophocles' Antigone.
In modern times, conscientious objection is sometimes allowed, such as the refusal to perform military service or to perform an abortion.
A special case is abortion. It is often promoted as a women's right. In reality, those against abortion believe (rightly or wrongly, I don't know) that the unborn child is already a human being and that therefore abortion is murder. Supporters, on the other hand, believe that it is not murder because the conceived being is not yet a human being. In a democracy, the majority decides, after broad and free debate, which of the two views should be followed: thus, it has been established that up to three months, it is not yet a human being and can therefore be aborted, whereas after that, it is, and thus it can no longer be done. (Certainly, this is always a somewhat strange idea, but it is the one that has prevailed).
A particular case is that of immigrants belonging to different cultures.
As we said, in reality, everyone, except for a few, acts according to their culture, and therefore repressive laws are necessary only for exceptions.
For example, for us Westerners, husbands cannot beat their wives: in reality, almost no one does, and the law prohibiting it is necessary only in rare exceptions.
But if we introduce people from the Middle East, where this practice is widespread, will they not behave according to our culture, and therefore will generalized repression be necessary?