Laws should be flexible enough to take account of various circumstances times and places

Laws can pertain to many sectors of human life. Some affect the functioning of a society marginally while others have a profound effect. On one hand, rules can be as simple as maintaining a becoming behavior while dealing with others and on the other, can be highly specific and even arcane to many individuals. The applicability of a wide variety of these imposed mandates can be significantly affected by many factors including those presented in the statement. Therefore, I mostly agree with the proposal for three reasons.

First, the circumstances can necessitate the introduction of new factors into play. For example, a doctor who specializes in treating cancer does have patients that are inherently more predisposed to succumb to death. In this scenario, it must be taken into account that a doctor’s effectiveness in treating diseases is not proportional to his expertise but to the severity and complexity of the health issues he or she is addressing. Here, the rule of judging the healthcare professionals’ prowess by the number of lives saved is fallacious. Therefore, the law to dismiss doctors based on their effectiveness is undermined. Hence, the provided statement is valid and does hold water.

Second, rules are not intrinsically rigid and can change their status with variation in periods. For instance, in Ukraine, the open use of guns by civilians in public areas is restricted to a great extent. However, with the recent invasion of the neighboring nation Russia, Ukraine’s government has galvanized the commoners to join the armed forces by providing specialized military training. In this scenario, civilians are apparently breaking the rule that mandates them to not use firearms in public places, however, given the dire circumstances, it becomes imperative for the citizens to act and defend their homeland. This is true and significantly strengthens the statement presented.

Third, principles followed in a region can not be ostensibly valid in another area. For example, the consumption of bovine flesh is restricted or even banned in certain regions of India and this rule has been imposed owing to the religious concerns of the Hindu population that dominates the northern region of the country. This rule was mandated by taking into account the volatility of the Hindus and possible dire ramifications if people of other religions practice consuming cow products in their milieu. However, in other states like Kerala and northeastern parts of the country, the stated rule is not in effect. Hence, the presented statement is true as evidenced by the given examples.

In conclusion, although the hard-liners would argue for strict enforcement of laws that are rigid, many factors need to be taken into account while evaluating the validity of the mandates, in order to take actions that are inherently fruitful and even acceptable by society. If the judiciary overlooks the nuances of situations, they do so at their own peril.