That elephant example immediately reminded me of the JYJ vs SM case, because everyone uses that example for them. That case showed us that doing what’s right isn’t easy in the real world—the “bad” guys will make up something even worse to get their way. I’m sure that you guys have all read additional examples in literature where doing the “right” thing by going against what’s generally accepted in society damages the people who try it. So, what I’m trying to say is that it’s great that someone has freed themselves from the chain—but what the person does after that is also significant. How do they convince the others around them to follow in their footsteps? Reading about this case has taught me that in the court people can get away with horrible logical reasoning, especially with bribes.
I like your post. I just think it has to be a little more practical.
For example, in JYJ’s case they had a literal chain—a contract. Legally and morally, when they found out it was against the international human rights standards and put them into quasi-slavery, would they need to follow it?
“In fact, one would be hard-pressed to find anywhere on this planet a legal system that endorses the idea that all contracts must be fulfilled no matter what. If anything, the law frowns upon the notion by introducing the principle of unconscionability into contract law[ii]. When the terms of a contract are clearly unfair to one party or goes against more fundamental norms and principles of social justice, a contract is deemed unconscionable and the court can decide to render it null and void. …
Therefore, the legal system of the 21st century and the value system that supports it do not credit the notion that one must fulfill a contract, even a clearly unfair one, at all costs as “honor” or “responsibility” but as foolishness and reckless endangerment. If anything, the insistence that a contract must be fulfilled no matter what is often indicative of an international crime at hand, as practically every case of human trafficking and the modern sex slave trade demonstrate. If it were indeed true that all contracts must be fulfilled, then the contracts issued by human traffickers would also be considered valid and victims of trafficking would be among the most honorable people on earth.”
-JYJfiles OP/ED
Even in the legal system, it is recognized that chains are not all good.
But, when is it truly right to break them? Some people still have to play the social game.
That elephant example immediately reminded me of the JYJ vs SM case, because everyone uses that example for them. That case showed us that doing what’s right isn’t easy in the real world—the “bad” guys will make up something even worse to get their way. I’m sure that you guys have all read additional examples in literature where doing the “right” thing by going against what’s generally accepted in society damages the people who try it. So, what I’m trying to say is that it’s great that someone has freed themselves from the chain—but what the person does after that is also significant. How do they convince the others around them to follow in their footsteps? Reading about this case has taught me that in the court people can get away with horrible logical reasoning, especially with bribes.
I like your post. I just think it has to be a little more practical.
For example, in JYJ’s case they had a literal chain—a contract. Legally and morally, when they found out it was against the international human rights standards and put them into quasi-slavery, would they need to follow it?
“In fact, one would be hard-pressed to find anywhere on this planet a legal system that endorses the idea that all contracts must be fulfilled no matter what. If anything, the law frowns upon the notion by introducing the principle of unconscionability into contract law[ii]. When the terms of a contract are clearly unfair to one party or goes against more fundamental norms and principles of social justice, a contract is deemed unconscionable and the court can decide to render it null and void. … Therefore, the legal system of the 21st century and the value system that supports it do not credit the notion that one must fulfill a contract, even a clearly unfair one, at all costs as “honor” or “responsibility” but as foolishness and reckless endangerment. If anything, the insistence that a contract must be fulfilled no matter what is often indicative of an international crime at hand, as practically every case of human trafficking and the modern sex slave trade demonstrate. If it were indeed true that all contracts must be fulfilled, then the contracts issued by human traffickers would also be considered valid and victims of trafficking would be among the most honorable people on earth.” -JYJfiles OP/ED
Even in the legal system, it is recognized that chains are not all good. But, when is it truly right to break them? Some people still have to play the social game.