How to choose between law and human feelings, and the relationship between law and human feelings

At all times, the law is greater than the human favor. To make a choice between violating the law and violating human feelings, you must choose to obey the law and abandon human feelings.

The law is the bottom line. Wise people will not touch the bottom line and cross the thunder pool without seeing it.

If a person violates the law, he will inevitably be punished by the law, which cannot be remedied.

And the favor, which is owed to him this time, will have a chance to remedy it in the future. A person, as long as he remembers his affection, will always find an opportunity to return the favor.

Moreover, if you refuse a favor because you are law-abiding, in the end, the other party can understand.

This brings us to human nature. China is a humane society, and the ruling class is also ruled by man, which do you say you should choose? There are always relatives and distant relationships, and the rules and laws are also determined by people. Let's consider it all before deciding.

Of course, the law and human favor must be judged by the law, and human favor cannot go beyond the law.

How to choose between law and human feelings, I think this is very unrealistic, although I know that it is correct to ask about the law, but in reality I think there are still many people who choose human feelings, so I think it is still realistic!

It should be objectively said that many times it is a dilemma, depending on which one you value more, and the decision is up to you.

I think that if you break the law, then you have to take the law first.

Take the law as the criterion, and human feelings cannot break through the law.

Law and human affection are two different conceptsSome people think that the law is ruthless and there is no human feeling, then this kind of thinking is too absolute.

The relationship between law and human affection is not completely contradictory, nor is it a black and white relationship.

Law is formed in the process of social and economic development, and in the process of social development, there are always some unruly people and things that need something to restrain them, and this forms the law.

There are also people who say that the law is nothing more than human feelings. The law is a standardized human affection, a universal binding human affection for the purpose of maintaining the steady development of society.

The law is the product of the development of human society, but once the law is formed, it cannot be changed at will because of human feelings, it has become a system, a rule, a norm, everyone must abide by it, and it cannot be surpassed by human feelings.

On the other hand, while abiding by the law, we must also respect human feelings, so that the society can have warmth everywhere.

Therefore, the relationship between law and human affection is not contradictory, nor is it a complementary relationship, but both have their specific form and value.

If talking about human feelings means being interfered with by human relations, then the law does not talk about human feelings. The people's courts exercise adjudication power independently in accordance with the provisions of law, and the people's procuratorates exercise procuratorial power independently in accordance with the provisions of law, and are not subject to interference by administrative organs, social groups, or individuals. If we talk about human affection, we mean that there is a human touch, and the Legislative Council embodies the general concept of justice of the masses of the people, and it is humane.

Legal basis: Article 5 of the Criminal Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China provides that the people's courts exercise their adjudication power independently in accordance with the provisions of law, and the people's procuratorates exercise their procuratorial power independently in accordance with the provisions of the law, and are not subject to interference by administrative organs, social groups or individuals.

"Law is nothing more than human feelings" means: law is the bottom line of morality, morality is also human feelings, and the existence of law is to maintain the existence of human feelings.

The law generally does not go beyond human emotions, that is, it is basically in line with social ethics and morality, human feelings and thoughts. That is, the law is rich in humanity. "Human feelings" cannot be understood as the sophistication of human feelings in society, but refers to human emotions.

The law is the most powerful way to maintain the stability of the country and the vigorous development of various undertakings, and it is also to defend the people.

The instrument of rights and interests is also the means by which the ruler rules over the ruled.

A law is a set of rules, usually through a set of systems to enforce them. But in a different place, the legal system.

The legal rights and obligations of people are explained in different ways. One way to distinguish this is to divide into civil law systems.

and common law systems. In some countries, their religious laws are based on their laws.

First of all, I am not a student of law, history, or philosophy, so the following views are only the words of one family.

The fact that the law is not humane is an easily misinterpreted conclusion, and I don't know where this statement came from in the first place. Taken literally, it would seem that his meaning should be that the law does not exceed the limits of human affection. This is very reminiscent of the saying that "human favor is greater than heaven" that has always been popular in our dynasty.

However, it is clear that this is contrary to the basic concept of the rule of law, and if this is interpreted, it is clear that this argument is not feasible in today's society.

But I think this is a typical misreading, and the key to this misreading is how we define the word human affection. The definition given by the term human affection is "a kind of survival relationship between people", in other words, it should be the sum of the experience of Chinese people in society (here excludes the good or bad of society itself behind this experience). Therefore, I think that human feelings and experience here are equal (human feelings are the special experience of Chinese), so this sentence can be said to be legal experience.

This is an interesting argument that we know that pragmatism since the 19th century believes that human cognition is the sum of experience, and truth is the summary of experience, and because of the first two conditions, people cannot reach what is behind experience (if it exists), and they do not need to achieve it. This set of pragmatist philosophies has influenced the development of thought in Western society as a whole, and has also formed a set of unique opinions on law. One of the most well-known founding works is Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.'s The Common Law, in which he makes a very classic assertion that "law is not based on logic, but on experience".

Obviously, this sentence echoes the "law is not human".

Explaining here is basically the limit of my ability as an amateur, and I hope to enlighten the landlord.