We are going to dive into the “go against” phrase as has been suggested. Indeed, we can say that to go against doesn’t necessarily mean to violate the letter of them.
Next, if you don’t willingly and consciously violate a commandment but still perform an act which is not consistent with the order of a commandment, is it really going against the commandments? Is it actually inconsistent with them?
The commandments have an appearance of a law. That’s why there are no phrases like “thou shalt not willingly and wittingly commit…”, or “or whichsoever act that may lead to this result”.
It can safely be understood that someone who kills an assailant in defence of his life or virtue or whatever high-ranking right, doesn’t really kill, as it is suggested that someone who steals a loaf of bread to feed his hungry children doesn’t really steal.
A reasonable civil judge will take into consideration all the circumstances of an action, all mitigating circumstances, everything what the defence says. Is God not a reasonable judge? He’s more than that; He’s a judge which needs no defence lawyers, no prosecution. In fact, He needs no scrutiny and no testimony whatsoever, nor does He actually need a law to know justice because He actually is justice. Why would He then add a ton of general clauses to His commandments? For the sake of man, obviously, as the commandments and all God’s laws revealed to man are for the sake of man, not God. But circumstance breeds circumstance and clause breeds clause. They multiply infinitely, whereas God’s justice is pretty much absolute.
This way, if someone attacks you and you have to inflict suffering to him, you are not going against the fifth. If someone uses force and you can’t resist, you are not going against the sixth. If you lie to mislead thugs chasing an innocent fugitive, you are not bearing false witness against your fellow man and are not going against the eighth. If you lie in bed sick on Sunday, you are not going against the third. If you tell your father he shouldn’t get a date with the neighbour’s wife, you aren’t going against the fourth. If you reclaim by force what was stolen from you, you aren’t going against the sixth. If you like a necklace so much that you won’t to buy it to your wife so soon as you get enough money, you aren’t going against the tenth. If you can’t assess the danger and call God for help and then it shows there was no danger, you aren’t going against the second.
It’s not against the commandment, as it in no way challenges the commandment itself. In this sense, it may be consistent with the commandment. Also, in this sense, those who are forgetful, don’t so much go against a commandment as they fail to meet its requirement - they aren’t challenging it.
But if you freely, willingly and consciously choose to do wrong rather than good, then you sin. Even if it doesn’t immediately appear to be inconsistent with a commandment - after all, all sins are against a commandment and therefore the ten commandments, they only differ in degree of removedness from the literal rule of the commandments.
Even in the secular laws - take a charter of human rights, be it an international convention or a constitution chapter - and then a country’s criminal laws. Whatever is forbidden there will in some way be an infringement of one of those very basic rights of your fellow man or all of them, except ceremonial rules which Jesus doesn’t tie with the commandments and Paul tells us not to overrate. Even unjust regulations are some twisted understanding of the basic rules - for example, if it’s forbidden for a Catholic priest to say the rosary in front of an abortion clinic, it is believed by the court to be protecting the basic rights of someone else. Even those oppressive unjust communist public safety rules are believed to be for the sake of the country as a community and a universum of individuals with rights. It’s just a twisted understanding. God’s understanding can’t be twisted. If at all, the commandments may be a humanly limited rendition of God’s justice which is too perfect to be contained in the words of the languages of mortals.
Uff… sorry for the rant, or rather the length of it.