Nonsensical Laws and Justice

In class, we discussed the idea that no matter the circumstance, breaking the law is considered commiting an act of injustice. I believe that it is essential to provide rules as a baseline in order to establish peace and regulation, because good will, in itself, has multiple motives from different people. Mill states, “Mankind are always predisposed to believe that any subjective feeling not otherwise accounted for, is a revelation of some objective reality.” Everyone has their own set of morals; therefore, rules are essential in order to prevent the destruction of mankind and overall disorder of society. However, I believe that we have social acceptances that permit the bending of the law based on the unspoken and unwritten moral laws. This turns the black and white and right versus wrong to have medians. For instance, if you look in the bible, it states “thou shalt not kill.” I found it an interesting fact in Life class that upon the founding Israel, refuge cities were set up to allow “accepted injustices” to leave peacefully without confrontation from the law. For example, if you accidentally dropped a brick off your house and killed your neighbor, you have the ability to move to escape the law and take refuge to another city. Kant states, “Necessity has no law.” If necessity has no laws, then how do you draw determine what was necessary and what was not necessary? Could this show that laws are objective among a group of people and that it is the form of punishment that unspoken rules of morality are applied?

Laws are only as good as their ability to enforce what they dictate. Therefore, why make nonsensical laws that are incapable of regulation. Laws in themselves are formal announcements to what society acclaims to be just. Even though laws change countlessly between countries, nations, and time, the main purpose remains the same: to maintain order. In a sense, laws that cannot be enforced are created to provide a moral baseline. However, if there is a clear distinction between the two, how do you determine whose moral principle is correct? Relating to the categorical imperative, how do you create a universal law while maintaining necessity principles? All of the principles philosophers make about what makes a just society all seem like they have examples that can support their claim. The problem that I run across learning about all these different theories is application: how do you create laws and establish them as just and equal within a society?