LAW AND LOGIC
I believe that the means should always justify the end and not the end justifying the means. Eichmann’s concern is not the end but the process. It is prudent that we have a set of rules that tell us to behave in a certain manner and then let the chips fall where they may instead of caring of the end result without concerning ourselves with whatever we do to attain our goals even if it is wrong. There is a distinction between law and legitimacy whereby when we do something within the statutory or common law it is legal. On the other hand we justify legitimacy through logic, for example you can infect a person’s laptop with a virus, and it might not be stated in the country’s law that it is illegal but it is not legitimate. Not infecting the laptop is the right thing to do; therefore, morally upright people make legitimate decisions whether they are in the constitution or not.
An act can be justified in one sense and unjustified in another but it should not be ignorance of the law. For example workers in a company can decide to go on strike. If the workers do not violate the statute provisions, then the strike is justifiable, but if during the strike some workers decide to indulge in violence and looting the strike cannot be justified and it becomes illegal. The law of the land tries to include every aspect of society but there are things that we do not include in the constitution. Some of the things that we do not include in the law are legitimate and should be a matter of logic. For example, cheating on a spouse or breaking a promise to someone is not in the law of the land but they are morally wrong. Thus, we cannot say that we should only act on things that have legal authority because following the legal path only will mean that do away with etiquette which concerns matters that contribute to quality of life.