How is this even a question? If you believe someone is good and they decided to do something against the law but for good reasons, are you going to punish that person? We know rules are important in society and we all aspire to be good citizens but sometimes we find ourselves in situations where we have to abandon our principles or break the law. Nobody is obeying the speed limit when carrying a dying child to hospital and nobody is condemning that person for breaking the law, to give a completely fatuous example.

The reason jurys convict ethically sound defendants is the same reason people fail to make the ethically sound choice in the Milgram experiment.

It doesn’t matter what the legal statutes say, you still have to think for yourself and others to make compassionate choices.

If you think about, the benevolent dictator model of governance is pretty much the best type of hierarchy. It avoids the indecision of a democracy, the corruption of oligarchy and the tyranny of autocracy.

Rare to see examples of this form, especially at large scale. One notable exception is Thailand, a country that is one of a handful that has never been colonised. The Thai people revere their king but they also have a democratic process, which occasionally comes under some corrective influence, backed by the army. It’s definitely not a tyranny but it’s not a democracy either.

British royal family.

Religions that collect money from adherents.

Web 2.0 data harvesting.

Being a conservative must be a discombobulating experience in the technological age. The conservative is attempting to prevent the progression of society and conserve what we currently have or even revert to a bygone era.

OP arrives at a brand new platform, a piece of technology that didn’t exist a short while ago and requests a space to assemble people who don’t like change.