I am increasingly bemused by the suggestions of Usually, Malice and others that if something is plainly ethically wrong the only recourse of the public is to campaign to change the law for the future rather than to set right or prevent the immediate wrong in question.
To take what may seem a fairly trivial example: the issue comes up quite often round here of people smoking in the street right outside people's houses so that the smoke drifts in through their windows. As the law stands, that's perfectly lawful, but it's inconsiderate if the smoker could perfectly well move a few steps away so that the smoke disperses harmlessly.
In that situation, I assume that what most people would do would be to ask that the individual move away. If the smoker refused and persisted in his/her conduct, I expect they might repeat their request more vociferously, and they might seek to involve other neighbours if they were also affected; they might even phone the police or the council to see if they would have a word. But on Usually and Malice's terms, that would be imposing unfair pressure on the individual in question, and instead the person affected should start lobbying his MP to get the laws on smoking changed.
Is there seriously no room in human conduct for seeking to resolve issues like this without waiting months or years for a change in the law?