In a perfect world the law is a paragon of virtue and upholds all things good, true, and just. Alas, we do not live in a perfect world.
No, in our world the law can be and often is on the wrong side of the moral compass. This is true in every nation and every society. Injustice is often protected by written law and enforced by those tasked with upholding the law. And yet it is not uncommon for society to be quick to misjudge a person based on their track record with the law by suggesting that they must be an immoral person if they cannot follow the law. Criminals, as we are often taught, are bad people by the sheer fact of being criminals. And yet there are often cases where this is so fundamentally untrue that it is outright incorrect--possibly even immoral--to suggest that it is. The idea that the law must always be followed even when it is morally bankrupt is, in my view, utter insanity and completely absurd. I used to be of the kind to assume that criminality and immorality go and hand-in-hand and that being law-abiding likewise meant being morally sound. These days, though, I would call that a "hella cringe take" and laugh at the very notion.
Morality and law can and often do conflict and that being a criminal does not necessarily make one immoral, nor does being law-abiding necessarily make one moral. It stands to reason that the law exists to make things fair and safe for as many people as possible, but because life is full of hardship and suffering that it is fundamentally impossible for the law to protect everyone while ensuring that everyone receives their just due. Sometimes the law can and will actively protect villainous or monstrous people by design, incompetence, or even just technicality. Sometimes doing what is truly, morally right requires breaking the law or even outright defying it's very existence. Sometimes an immoral Man can stay within the boundaries of the law and be protected by it and sometimes a moral Man can stand outside the boundaries of the law and yet still be a person generally described as being morally upright in their behavior. The law and morality can conflict with one another and compliment one another, but never can they be one or the other. The law should, of course, be followed to the letter up until it begins to trend into immoral territory - then, I believe, it is perfectly justifiable and indeed totally righteous to actively subvert said immoral laws.
Or so I believe, anyway. What say ye, NSG? Is the law worth following even when it's so blatantly in the moral wrong? Does the right thing to do stop being the right thing when it conflicts with the law of the land? Is OP hella cringe?
