The point of having laws is to resolve the problem: not everyone in society has ethics, let alone the same ethics, or ethics that are compatible with each other.
> The point of having laws is to resolve the problem
This statement is normative and has no relation to how laws are actually created.
Can you name a framework of laws that was implemented by a sovereign, explicitly developed to resolve the problem of heterogeneous goal vectors for a defined political population?
I’m unaware of one.
All foundational “constitutions” I’m aware of were written - not as treaties that were negotiated as partners during peace that have explicit and well defined ethical principles that need to be accommodated for - rather each side claim discrete and finite sovereignty and only at the point that one group shows overwhelming violent dominance is imminent do groups grudgingly carve out their own territory.
So no, there is no coherent process for lawmaking that does anything other than encode the desires of the dominant political arm into the structures of its own making.
Wasn't this the whole point of the Bill of Rights? Without it, some states wouldn't have ratified the Constitution. This was a concession (a weakening of federal power) made for a non-dominant political arm that nevertheless needed to be brought into the fold. That seems to me like it was "explicitly developed to resolve the problem of heterogenous goal vectors for a defined political population."
More broadly, "resolve etc." in the above quote sounds like a mathy expansion of "compromise", which happens in almost every legislative body every day. Although maybe that's done implicitly and not explicitly.
