Absolutely, but the counter argument is that the conclusion of that debate is expressed by the law, which is supposed to be the will of the people.
You could of course make the case that our democracy is too imperfect to accept the letter of any particular law as a direct expression of the will of the people without applying your further judgement.
Laws can be inconsistent, unjust or inappropriately applied and that's why we have the courts to make those judgements. Unfortunately, access to the courts is very unequal, particularly in the case of civil law. It's always been like this, hence breaking the law has always been the poor man's expensive lawyer and lobbyist at the same time.
Of course this argument could be used as a blanket excuse for breaking any law. Personal judgement just can't be replaced by any system.
You could of course make the case that our democracy is too imperfect to accept the letter of any particular law as a direct expression of the will of the people without applying your further judgement.
Laws can be inconsistent, unjust or inappropriately applied and that's why we have the courts to make those judgements. Unfortunately, access to the courts is very unequal, particularly in the case of civil law. It's always been like this, hence breaking the law has always been the poor man's expensive lawyer and lobbyist at the same time.
Of course this argument could be used as a blanket excuse for breaking any law. Personal judgement just can't be replaced by any system.