Dr Bob thank you for your comment but I think I have to disagree.
The first thing I would say is that the discretion in the aplication of a law is not the same as choosing to obey a law. And here we are not talking about just not following a law but actually disregarding it in favour of a person’s own subjective view of what the law should be.
The second thing I would say is that there exist political procedures for changing laws and these can and do work. I do concede that in some countries and in some time frames there would be no recourse to a political solution.
Finally I would make this point. The idea that a noble cause or a higher moral ground exists that would allow a person to suspend a law is just fine when that higher moral ground works in your favour. If we allow the view that a person can usurp a law and replace it with their view of a law then honour killings would be legitimate for the killers. Perhaps the victims of honour killings would object to this. These victims – if they could speak – might claim the higher moral ground I would say.
This argument relies totally on an asymmetric perspective.
.
