Most people need to realize the profound difference between law and justice. The difference also exists between ethics and thinking and other matters in this world, such as human habits and the active forces of nature. I will describe the difference by focusing on the 2024 movie “The Beekeeper.”
In “The Beekeeper,” Jason Statham stars as a retired, highly trained government agent named Adam Clay, who works as a beekeeper. He hears that his friend, an elderly black woman, has been swindled out of over two million dollars of her money by a con man. This caused her to commit suicide. He discovers that the con man did this to other people and leaves his hives to punish the con man and his gang.
The problem is that the con man is the son of the US president, and there is no chance that the law will convict him. It seems that the only way to punish him is to allow Adam Clay to kill him. The dead woman’s daughter disagrees. She is an efficient FBI agent who firmly believes society must adhere to laws. Because of the law, she tries to stop Clay but ultimately changes her mind when Clay asks her to choose between the law and justice.
Many philosophers, theologians, and other thinkers have understood that all laws are imperfect. Even the best laws which benefit most citizens will harm others. This is the nature of laws. In the case of the beekeeper, the law demands that the villain be tried in a court and, if found guilty, imprisoned. However, in his situation, because he is the son of the US president, he would not be punished by the law. Instead, Adam Clay had to resort to justice. Justice is the behavior that is applied after consideration of all facts. It requires thinking, not referral to an imperfect law book.
Ethics is also imperfect and needs improvement. Ethics are rules that societies set up in different places at different times, suggesting how people should behave. They are excellent guides for people who need guidance about how to act in specific instances. These rules differ in different locations and times. They are generally correct, but not always. For example, in the US, men are encouraged to open doors for women and offer them their seats in buses, but in Iran, it is considered proper to disallow women to drive cars and be educated. Some insist that women should cover their hair; others think this is wrong. Over two thousand years ago, the brilliant Greek philosopher Aristotle looked at the uneducated and uninformed women in Athens and deduced that women were inferior creatures. The ethics of his time allowed men to discriminate against them. Today, we see that this ethical rule is wrong.
The opposite of ethics is thinking, as it is with laws. Rather than accepting what most citizens thought at a particular place and time as what society felt was proper, the individual thinks, considers all the facts, and makes a rational decision.
(Ironically, the most perfect ethical rule in the Hebrew Bible and New Testament is to love others as you want to be loved. This means that you should treat others as you want them to treat you. Ironically, most people do not follow this ethical principle. Additionally, even this almost-perfect ethical rule is not perfect. Sometimes, it is wrong to treat the other person as you want to be treated.)
As with laws and ethics, even human habits are imperfect. The great Jewish philosopher Maimonides taught that when people act improperly, which people unfortunately like to call sin, they need to correct their behavior. Many think that the way to erase the misbehavior is to give charity, pray, fast, or seek a pardon from the clergy. These acts do not improve behavior. They only reinforce and call attention to the need to improve. He said the improvement is made in three steps. First, people must recognize they are misbehaving. Second, resolve to cease these acts. Third, develop behavior habits to ensure you will not repeat the wrong.
This is excellent, indeed very rational advice. However, as with everything else, even good habits require us to be alert to times when we should not do what is habitually good. For example, most of us who drive cars drive to various places without much thought by following our habitual route. This is good. But we must still be alert and watch out for impaired drivers, individuals who foolishly rush across streets, and other hazards.
The phenomenon of imperfection is part of every aspect of nature. Even the forces of nature, which are generally helpful to most people, sometimes harm others. Strong winds clean the air and ground but often kill families. Similarly, earthquakes have helpful consequences, but people die or lose homes when they occur.
The solution regarding the forces of nature is the same as with laws, ethics, and habits. People should think. We need to realize that these events often occur in areas where poorer families settle. Countries need to disallow settlements in these areas and plant forests there instead. The result will be more oxygen in the world.

Second, resolve to cease these acts
This is the hard part rabbi.
How do we develop ourselves to make a specific plan to resolve our bad actions?
Justice is the behavior that is applied after consideration of all facts. It requires thinking, not referral to an imperfect law book.
Wouldn’t the judge be breaking the law if he didn’t apply the same standard of the “law book” to everyone
Lawyer Rabbi Israel Drazin?
The standard applicable to allis treating others as you want them to treat you.
I want to see the movie “The Beekeeper”. Jason Statham is one of my favorite actors.
My comment on your excellent essay.
“In the US, men are encouraged to open doors for women and offer them their seats in buses, but in Iran, it is considered proper to disallow women to drive cars and be educated.”
I also think it is improper to disallow women to drive in Iran. In the 70s Iran was a great country. All the rich people went to Iran for vacation. Women had equal rights. The revolution put an end to the Western society. Muslims in Iran recently murdered a 16-year-old girl for violating the religious laws. They view themselves as good. I don’t care what they think, it is murder. There are Muslims not like this, but the culture is evil.
“The phenomenon of imperfection is part of every aspect of nature.”
In my view, nature is perfect. There is no disdain in nature, nature is perfect; that’s what God made. God is perfect — the laws of nature were established by God; therefore, the laws of nature are perfect. Thus, there is no need for God to alter these laws. Everything works according to the laws of nature. The laws that God created that govern the world are perfect.
However, I do not know why the laws of nature work as they do. Maimonides said that what we think is bad is part of nature and is good for the world. We do not know why God created a world where laws that are good for most people will harm some individuals. For example, hurricanes cleanse the earth. However, some people drown in hurricanes. Since I do not know why God designed earth this way, I do not know if it is bad that a person was killed in a hurricane. In my view, it is sad that the person drowned but who am I to judge? I do feel sorry for the dead person. Similarly, it is sad when people are hurt in earthquakes. However, earthquakes may be a way to rid the area of bad items in the soil. Maimonides said that we should not view natural disasters as bad in nature but merely as what is. The truth is that we simply don’t understand nature sufficiently. So we cannot assert blame.
“We need to realize that these events often occur in areas where poorer families settle. Countries need to disallow settlements in these areas and plant forests there instead. The result will be more oxygen in the world.”
This is similar to the view of the French philosopher, Rousseau. Rousseau wanted people to return to nature (plant more trees). He felt that God created a world where people could be happy. It is people who ruin their lives. During the earthquake in Lisbon, many people returned to their homes to gather their things. This led tragically to more deaths. However, Rousseau notes in a letter that, “nature did not construct twenty thousand houses of six to seven stories there, and… if the inhabitants of this great city had been more equally spread out and more lightly lodged, the damage would have been much less and perhaps of no account…”
Besides, we cannot expect God to change his plan because a country wants to build a city in a certain area. To quote Rousseau: “Should it be said then that the order of the world ought to change according to our whims, that nature ought to be subjected to our laws, and that in order to disallow it an earthquake in some place, we have only to build a City there?”
We agree in all that you wrote. I would add that when we say that all that God created is perfect, we do not mean that no one is ever hurt by them. We should recognize, as you do, that some people are hurt by every law. When we say God’s laws are perfect, we mean that we think they are as God wants them to be. They are even the best possible laws. But we do not know why God made them as such and not in another way.
I agree with you entirely that God’s laws are perfect in the sense that they act according to God’s will. God is much smarter than me or any other creature. Since God is wiser than us I assume the laws were designed in the best fashion.
Yes we agree.
Can God’s will be wrong and perfected?
Or do we adapt to it and make it better for us?
We know nothing about God and we have no power to influence God in any way.
Your ethical solution proposed , dear rabbi Israel Drazin, involves taking proactive steps towards mitigating the impact of forces of nature on vulnerable communities. These steps include enforcing laws that restrict settlement in high-risk areas, promoting ethical practices that prioritize the welfare of poorer families, and adopting habits such as planting forests in these potentially hazardous areas. The added advantage of this approach, aside from ensuring the safety of these communities, would be the creation of more oxygen through these hypothetical forests, which could potentially combat global warming and contribute to a healthier environment. Best: stephen
Thank you very much Stephen.