Starvid is also a realist which makes it also possible that he would accept "laws are changed for expeciency reasons when the old law becomes inconvenient to the sovereign". Which is not necessarily false, but also not necessarily true in all cases. I prefer the version where laws are changed when they get out of line with the evolving mores. And then there's a distinction between morality (as customs) and ethics (right behaviour).

In other words: there's what's legal and illegal; what's done or not done (morals); and right and wrong (ethics).

One doesn't have to believe in natural law (which is a sort of absolute standard) in order to believe that ethical behaviour exists and can be illegal.

But one can also decide that law dictates morality and there's no difference between morality and ethics.

En un viejo país ineficiente, algo así como España entre dos guerras civiles, poseer una casa y poca hacienda y memoria ninguna. -- Gil de Biedma