iamnotaparakeet wrote:
When there are laws, or rules, to be followed, is it possible to follow both the letter of the law and the intent of the law? Is it possible to follow the intent of the law without following the letter of the law? Is it, more classically, possible to follow the letter of the law without following the intent of the law?
The first question is meaningless because its assumed that following the letter and intent of the law are the same thing . And usually they are the same.
The second two are real questions. The answerr is yes to both. You can be true to one and violate the other in some circumstances.
I was hassled by a superviser at work once for violating the letter of the law in a situation in which the law was not needed because the problem the rule was intended to remedy didnt exist in the particular situation , and further- following the rule would actually create problems of its own that wouldnt normally occur because of an odd circumsatnce in the situation.
That same superviser in the same work day ingnored another employee for breaking both the letter and the intent of the very same rule when this other employee created the text book example of the very problem that the rule was designed to prevent.
I was too lazy to point out the superviser's inconsistancy in applying this rule. Maybe I shouldve called him on it. Its still drifts into my mind from time to time.