Following the Rules

Discussion in 'Religion & Philosophy' started by Merc, Oct 14, 2009.

  1. Merc

    Merc Certified Shitlord V.I.P. Lifetime

    An idea I got from the thread about the six year old who was suspended for bringing a pocket utensil tool to school, what do you think of rules?

    Should rules be followed implicitly?

    Should rules be regularly challenged?

    Should a "rule" be the final word when handing out punishment or enforcing behavior?

    Is there any degree of rationality that should be applied first or is the "rule" final?
     

  2. CaptainObvious

    CaptainObvious Son of Liberty V.I.P.

    I'm generally a follow the rules type person, but do agree they should be challenged. If you don't agree with a rule you attempt to change it, but you can't pick and choose what rules to follow and what rules not to follow.

    Bear in mind I'm not talking about law or statutes that are oppressing or would violate people's rights. I'm speaking about rules in general, such as the one that was discussed that caused this thread to be made.
     
  3. sully09

    sully09 New Member

    I follow the rules just to stay out of trouble. But if a rule is unjust I will fight it. I actually yelled at a teacher in 8th grade about the unfairness of one of the rules for recess (dont remember the rule off the top of my head). She said she would change the rule if I agreed to a week of detention with her. I did and it worked :). So obviously I believe in changing rules regularly. We are a society that evolves, the fair and just needs and of people change quickly, rules shouldn't hinder those needs.
     
  4. Wade8813

    Wade8813 Registered Member

    Unless you believe humans are infallible, you can't possibly believe that rules are perfect.

    That said, society can't function without rules, and rules can't function unless they're followed.

    I think any rule set that involves serious punishment should have a system already in place for addressing any potential flaws in the system, whether it is to allow discretion, or have a system to revise the rules if need be.

    Rules exist for our benefit; we don't exist to follow rules. But people can't just decide they don't feel like following rules.
     
  5. ExpectantlyIronic

    ExpectantlyIronic e̳̳̺͕ͬ̓̑̂ͮͦͣ͒͒h̙ͦ̔͂?̅̂ ̾͗̑

    To follow the rules, only because they are the rules, is to put yourself in a position of servitude and deny personal responsibility. We are responsible first and foremost to do what we think is right: "man is condemned to be free," as Sartre said. So acts of civil disobedience can be more than justified, but can be something we are duty-bound to commit.
     
  6. BigBob

    BigBob Registered Member

    I agree with what Expectantly said, but you have to understand one thing. With the way cops and the government act today, it doesn't matter if you follow the rules or not, they'll find something to get you on. Cops in most places I live act as if they rule the world and if they don't like you, they'll find a way to put you in jail for something. That's another discussion though.

    I personally don't follow all the rules because I don't believe in some. You tell me the government follows the constitution, the rules that our former presidents set for them. If you say they do, I think we all here can laugh at you.
     
  7. EllyDicious

    EllyDicious made of AMBIGUITY V.I.P. Lifetime

    Most of the times yes. As long as you're part of the system you have to follow them. If you can't, get away from it and go elsewhere.
    you're in my place, follow my rules.

    it depends. it's a case by case situation. if it comes something good out of it, then yes. [but not necessarily regularly because it's somewhat impossible]


    I think there should be exceptional rules of the main rule.
    But rules can't predict everything possible. so, i don't think it should be the final word to every situation...especially when it comes to punishment.
    Rules are meant to be rational, but there might/should be a degree of rationality if the rule/rules put together is/are not the whole answer to a certain problem.
     
  8. Susano

    Susano Registered Member

    People are not made for the sake of laws, but laws for the sake of people. I think thats the long and the short of it. If a law isnt helpful (anymore), or even is actively hurting society/single people, then it should be challenged or even outright ignored.

    Thus:


    No. Rules should be followed because they are good and helpful, not because theyre rules.

    Of course.

    No, as said "Its the rules" is never good enough in itself.

    Of course rationality should be applied. It always should, shouldnt it?
     

Share This Page