Hi! I'l Lucy, a rising junior in Cupertino, CA. I was introduced to philosophy in Lincoln-Douglas debate, and I have a very preliminary understanding of philosophy (Kant, Bentham, Rawls, Locke, Agamben, Marx,) and more contemporary philosophers like Iris Marion Young and Wilderson. I think this question is a very interesting one, and here’s what I noticed from the answers: Most transgression of the law are condoned and even encouraged when Law is behind on social issues, and that discrepancy allows us to either look back at history and try to align it with our modern values. (ex. slavery, women’s suffrage) Law’s generalization does not apply to a particular instance (bit tricky because jury nullification and a judge’s interpretation of the law could still count as the law, even if it violated the explicit text). In this case , we need to determine whether the rule of law was beneficial in itself, (too many exceptions can collapse rule of law) or only in particular instances. Sort of like the distinction between rule utilitarianism and act utilitarianism. Law differs from our personal beliefs. In order to justify this, we need to determine what “wrong” and “right” mean to us. Are we acting as a citizen, or an independent moral authority? This question poses some interesting questions, but one thing it makes apparent is that law is not, nor should it be an exact parallel to our moral code, and sometimes even condones cultural prejudice (ex. mass incarceration of African Americans), which leads us to questions about the natural and purpose of government in the first place. Is the ultimate goal of government is to arbitrate citizens rights and liberties for the general welfare of the state? Are we are bound to the law through the social contract? Is the law a mask for the dominant ideology to impose its will? I know it seems like I’m asking more questions than answering, but it’s hard to come up with a definite answer on such a broad topic, and I’m open to new ideas and thoughts.