Skip to main content

On Breaking Rules

Rules are great. They provide justice, order, and stability. But must they always be followed? If not (and one would think not), which rules can be broken, and when?

The Sufficient Conditions for Rule Breaking

But what about rules that do make sense—ones that serve a good, clear purpose? When can they be broken? It is not possible to consider every possible scenario regarding each rule, so here is a "Rule for Breaking Rules": When the purpose of the rule is understood, and when breaking that rule does not go against its purpose, the rule can be broken.

Here are some examples worth considering.

Jaywalking

The main purpose of traffic lights and other traffic laws is safety. Jaywalking is morally acceptable when a pedestrian, on an empty street, for instance, correctly judges that it is safe enough to cross.

In undeveloped Chinese cities, traffic lights are ignored, so attention must be paid more to oncoming vehicles than to the traffic lights. Waiting until the light turns green in these cities would hardly make the crossing more safe. Hence jaywalking on a busy street in these undeveloped cities is morally acceptable, while jaywalking elsewhere may not be.

Lying

The main purpose of communication depends on the given situation. On situations where the consequence of the conversation matters more than the veracity of the contents, it is morally acceptable to lie. It is morally acceptable to tell a toned down version of a family's fatal accident to a lone surviving child, even if the story is far from the truth. Whether it is more ethical to do so or not is a harder question.

Drugs

The purpose of most drug bans is to combat the dangers of addiction. Some drugs pose a serious threat to relationships and mental and physical health. But the same could be said about gasoline and superglue. Drugs are treated differently from other addictive, potentially harmful household items because they carry a bad history. Using drugs without malicious intents, on levels that do not exceed doctor recommendations, is morally acceptable.


The Necessary Conditions

The Rule for Breaking Rules specifies the sufficient conditions in which rule breaking is allowed. A natural follow-up question would be what the necessary conditions for rule breaking are. Here is the second part of the Rule for Breaking Rules: Rules should be broken when following the rule goes against the rule's purpose or intent. For example, if a biker is being chased by a mad dog during a red light, it would be wrong for the biker to stop. Though going at a red light could also result in a terrible accident, it at least gives a chance for survival.


Conclusion

This post examined the necessary and sufficient conditions for rule breaking. It is my hope that this guideline would be used in legal, as well as in informal affairs, exonerating those who rightly broke rules, and blaming those who followed rules when they should not have.

The Rule for Breaking Rules applies only insofar as the rules themselves serve good purposes. Strange rules that have no positive purpose are not ethically binding. Additionally, it is arguably more honorable to break rather than follow unethical rules, as Rosa Parks did in 1955.

One possible objection to this theory is that instead of breaking a rule under certain circumstances, following the rule regardless of the situation could set a good example for others. It could. But one could also set an example by breaking rules when it is better to do so.

Comments

  1. I wish this blog would load up more nicely here in ssajibang ㅋㅋ I saved this comment months ago and never got to upload it.

    Haha sufficient and necessary conditions. I feel like I'm back in philosophy class.

    I think if we lived in a perfect world, there would be no reason for us to ever need to break a law. Because the rule would serve its purpose perfectly regardless of the situation. The Chinese (and Philippines for that matter) cars would obey the traffic laws and as long as we did, we'd be safe. If it was a perfect world, there would be no reason to tell a toned down version of a child's death. The parents would have perfect human rationale that would allow them to process "Yes, this person just blatantly told me my child died but I'm not hurt by that bluntness because I'm a perfectly rational creature that I should put aside my emotions from the truthness of the facts being delivered." (But we're predictably irrational...) If it was a perfect world, there wouldn't be such a thing as unethical laws like in Rosa Parks case (provided of course ethical issues and morality in general would somehow theoretically fit under some scheme of perfectness). Your section on drugs is a little harder to respond to. I guess what you're trying to say is that if some dude got his hands on drugs ILLEGALLY but used it for good purposes then it would be morally okay. Again, if we lived in a perfect world, he wouldn't have to get it illegally. Nor would it be necessary to be banned in the first place because we'd know not to use it for addictive pleasure purposes even if it was available to us. Furthermore... Drugs carry a bad rep because why? Well isn't it because they are easier to er... mal-use(?) It's not as toxic but it gives us the high we need. Whereas gasoline or super glue...

    ReplyDelete
  2. As for the mad dog chasing you and there's a red light. No cars around. Check both directions. Yeah, I'd definitely run the light as well. But should we? Is there some other way around that we just can't figure out? Could it be that perhaps the "other way around" is simply getting bit by the dog? For this part, I'm going a little beyond the whole conversation and thinking on terms of spirituality. Back in high school, I had this very well respected Bible teacher talk to me (and the class) about missionaries not just in China but other parts of the world who hide their identity and basically lie about being missionaries in China for the greater good (like spreading the gospel and what not). He wasn't condemning them or anything. He was very careful. And he only answered the question because it was Q&A time on fridays and we poked him for an answer. He said this, "Does God really need us and not just us but does He need us to break His rules for Him to accomplish His will and kingdom here?" Food for thought... But of course, we followed up with the whole Rahab story in the Bible.

    My point on the whole perfect world utopian society is this... We don't live in a perfect world. So should we just go about bending the rules to better fit ourselves in that unperfect world. Or even if it doesn't accomplish anything, even if it may risk our lives, even if we might not see the fruit of it in our lifetime or our children's or the next, should we still strive for that perfect world and try to live for those ideals as much as we can...

    On a side note, personally, the thing that caught my attention the most is lying. (Yeah jaywalking should catch my attention as well because I do it all the time in Songdo because my conscience tells me it's safer to do so when I can). This is very personal but yeah I've thought about this whole thing and as of now though, I've come to the conclusion that despite the crap that it may rain upon me and others, I'm gonna go with 100% honesty despite the situation as much as I can. Cuz I want to believe it will do good in the end. I think the whole world can be fixed, politics/environment/education/etc. if we were all just a little bit more honest with each other.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I'm not sure how many people will be able to see this but hopefully not too many eyes as of now. Another thought that came across my mind... I remember struggling and debating for a long time whether to create and start this program..er..club called Tech Team in Songdo. You and I both know where that has led to. But I remember oh the struggles of even mentioning the idea out of my mouth. Why? Because well I wanted to do it for this greater good. For this "big purpose" that I believe will benefit the freshmen to come. I had this entire list of reasons why I thought it was a good idea. But to accomplish that good idea, I knew I would have to work with all this other crap, all the other politics behind it, that I knew would go against everything I stood for and believed in. I would have to go along with it. I would have to accept it for now. I knew I had to just do as they told me to do, even if I believed it was wrong, well for the greater good.

    Hindsight... Yeah, you and I both know where that has led to. That yeah, in the end, I ended up doing it. Am I happy with the results? Beyond happy. But does that subconscious dilemma inside me still exist? Absolutely. Am I contradicting myself with everything I wrote up there? Ha, we are after all predictably irrational aren't we.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Rationally Gifting

Mainstream economists have argued that because people know their own preferences, gift giving is irrational. Behavioral economists have countered by claiming that gift exchanges can strengthen social bonds as well as make both members of the exchange feel better than they would have, had they purchased items on their own. Nobel prize winner Richard Thaler added to this argument stating that because people mentally divide their budget up into categories, such as 10% for clothing, a nice shirt that exceeds that mental budget is of immense utility. Behavioral economists give quite convincing arguments. But would there be reasons for exchanging gifts even if everyone was perfectly rational? There would be if information was incomplete. Specialization makes gift giving rational. Because it is impossible to know about every market in expert detail, people often make choices that are suboptimal. When a sommelier gives a bottle of wine, the receiver is not only given a gift; he is given pr...

Getting Economists to Vote

The Freakonomics guys summed it up well: "... voting exacts a cost -- in time, effort, lost productivity -- with no discernible payoff except perhaps some vague sense of having done your 'civic duty.' As the economist Patricia Funk wrote in a recent paper, 'A rational individual should abstain from voting.'" -excerpt from a New York Times article This is unsettling, because many people consider the economic policies of candidates to be of the utmost importance. (According to the Chosun Ilbo article written on May 4th, 2017, polls revealed that economic growth policy was the most important factor of the 2017 Korean elections, at a rate of 28.5%. Policies regarding job creation came in second place, at 18.8%.) What to do, when the people who allegedly know the most about the economy take no part in shaping it? Surely, this major problem is difficult to remove without hurting democracy. Perhaps, then, hurting democracy is the best way to solve thi...