第一次写issue,大家来批评批评

fizzacreedUID: 2589636

题目"Laws should not be rigid or fixed. Instead, they should be flexible enough to take account of various circumstances, times, and places." Laws and morality are symbiotic and interdependent. While laws are tangible and rigid, the morality is intangible and more prone to be flexible. They supplement each other, when one of them is not functioning, we could still resort the other one. Governing a country under a legal system is what the most countries do nowadays. Black characters against white paper explicitly stipulate what the people’s rights and obligations are. Once a rigid and fixed law comes into force, the society can immediately reach a consensus, so that the societal administration is facilitated and the punishment to incompliance is much more convincing. Another system to rule the people is moral system. It is a completely flexible system, in comparison with the legal system. The conviction is totally based on morality, where sympathy and selfish motivation may play roles. The same incompliance might receive even contrary judgment, so in this way it is impossible to maintain the justice and people would no longer advocate your governance. It is true that along with the gradually varying circumstances the obsolete rigid laws are highly likely shown to be inadaptable to the encountered situation. Revisions or complements are inevasible at the legislature. But despite all that, we have to notice the circumstances are persistently altering, so do the minds of people. In case that the laws became so flexible that they are keen to perfectly adapt each situation, then the problem should arise with executability. The laws could be so fast reactive that people violate the law without consciousness and executors judge cases with out of date regulations. This is apparently not what we want to see. So in the other words, laws must keep some of its rigidness, make full use of the societal tolerance and morality control, and change themselves only when unavoidable.