"re-worked" thesis

so this is what i "want to argue"

Whether the society's moral conscience is held more powerfully by the people or the leader depends on the amount of control that the government holds and consequently allows its people to hold.

The more say that people have in the government, the more that the conscience of the people will be reflected in the laws of the society. Therefore, the people will be more willing to abide by those laws, even if the choice that they advocated at first didn't become the actual law. Conflicts, especially questions regarding moral issues, help create this kind of situation because they make the opportunity for people to make decisions about what they believe, what they would like their society to deem as acceptable or not, etc. An issue comes up, people advocate one side or the other, and one side or the other wins (theoretically, a law is made supporting the "winning side"). When this decision is made by the majority, everyone pretty much agrees to follow the law because they see that it's a fair system. They had a say, but it's not what the majority wanted. Now, there are of course people who ardently disagree with certain laws, governmental policies, but it's rare that revolutions start all over the country because someone wasn't pleased with a court decision (this would mean that the majority won only by a little, maybe). The unlikelihood of something like this happening is evidence that people, for the most part, go along with the majority - because of the innate tendency to conform; because we need to belong to the "group."

I'm basically back to my same because, but hopefully my thoughts are a little clearer. At least they're clearer to me. That's a start.