The Law in modern secular Western democracies is a good example of 'not even trying'.
It used be be assumed that 1. Laws should be moral; 2. Laws should be coherent.
If Laws are moral and coherent then it is Good to obey them (while acknowledging that Law is not the highest morality, and being both partial and systematic Laws sometimes are not moral and coherent - hence the need for God, Judges, and mercy).
But it is about fifty years since The West abandoned this religious concept of Law; and the real Law began to unravel. Now The Law is not even trying to be moral and coherent.
Now, Laws are not moral, because there is no morality - morality is contextual and contingent hence unreal; and Laws are not coherent, because coherence is not acknowledged as necessary, nor even as Good.
Now Laws are just Laws, and they are not based on anything solid, they are not a consensus, they can change open-endedly, the contradict each other, we are all doing illegal things every moment of every day, disobedience to many laws is openly advocated and praised... yet in some situations some people are supposed to obey some Laws... Or Else.
This is the situation- The Law is not trying to be moral nor is it trying to be coherent; and this situation is justified on the basis that there is no morality and no requirement for coherence; so fundamentally what is now called Law is a fake, that is only related to real Law at the level of evolving social institutions.
Note: The situation of living under a fake system of Law is generally unnoticed because people do not discriminate between a real but imperfect system of Law- which has the correct and necessary ideals and aspirations but fails to execute them perfectly is has flaws and corruptions; and, on the other hand, a fundamentally fake or pseudo-system of Law, which cannot be described as corrupt or flawed because it lack any concept of purity or perfection. Between these, there is all the difference in the world.