system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
If there are, as most philosophers believe, objective and real moral facts, and if it is true that experts in ethics know what those facts are, then why do we still make decisions about society democratically rather than through philosophers and other experts?

For instance, if there is a consensus in academic ethics that eating meat, especially from factory farms, is objectively, factually, morally wrong, then what possible reason could we have to still allow people to choose to eat meat? Why do we allow people the freedom to be ignorant, immoral, and wrong when the experts know better? More importantly, why do we put matters of *objective fact* to a popular vote by the masses? 

If you are an expert in academic ethics, do you feel that Western society doesn't grant enough influence to philosophers of ethics?
gpt
If there are, as most scientists believe, objective and real facts about global warming, and if it is true that experts in science know what those facts are, then why do we still make decisions about global warming policy democratically rather than through scientists and other experts?

The answer is that politics is not some sort of hyper-logical process that is run by Vulcans or whatever. It's run by human beings who often have priorities other than "listen to people who know what they are talking about."