Culture / Ethics / August 21, 2012

Precedence Should Sit This One Out


Society cannot function without laws. We need laws and the enforcement of them to ensure safety, structure, and well being. Laws protect our way of life and restrict harmful behavior. A proper legislative system will promote or reward good and punish evil. At least that’s the theory.

But what happens when those same laws inhibit people from doing right? I’m not referring to some Robin-Hood-meets-Prince-John good outlaw vs. evil dictator. I’m referring to the type of inhibition that comes from a law that started with good reason but, because of precedence, now threatens to keep children hungry.

Read the full article  HERE. ,


Aug 21, 2012

The goodness of Pratiss’ actions unfortunately obfuscates the larger and more far reaching question which is-WHO decides when a law can be broken due to the supposition that the resulting action “is greater than precedent”?

    Aug 22, 2012

    That is a great question and a hard one. I believe that in situations such as this there must be a way to make exceptions to laws that are being enforced in ways that weren’t the original intent. If there is room for legal exception then there need not be circumventing or disobeying the law.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *