Yakk

I can't help but notice that people put alot of stock in rules.

Comments like "they saw the rule, and broke it. So they deserve the punishment." aren't all that rare.

The thing is, I don't understand it. If the rule is a good rule, and breaking it caused harm, and the punishment is appropriate, then sure. But this has nothing, to me, to do with the rule: if someone did harm, and they are appropriately punished, then the punishment is justified.

I have difficulty understanding why the existance of the Rule justifies anything.

Rules, to me, are at most communication. At best, they are a form of speech by those with power, saying what they consider wrong and how they will respond.

There is some utility to such communication, at least for the setter of the rules. It magnifies the power of those with power, because instead of being forced to use their power to influence behaviour, they can use the threat of their power to influence behaviour. If you make it clear that "if you cross this line, we will shoot you", you will have to use fewer bullets than if you just shoot everyone who crosses the line.

I realize that people think differently, sometimes to a great extent. So I'm wondering what other people think about this.

Are Rules, themselves, important to you? Does the existance of a Rule justify the punishment in any way, or make the act that violates the Rule any more wrong?

PS: This could be moved to any of Politics, Philosophy or Living.

__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

Bill O'Rights

Simply put...would this forum, for example, be as good as it is...without rules? No...I don't think so. Rules provide boundaries. Without enforced rules then everyone gets to do his, or her, own thing, with no checks or balances, and anarchy soon reigns supreme. Not here, of course. That's why I'm here. I'm Bill O'Rights...and I enforce the rules.

__________________
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony

"Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus

It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt.

BigBen

As you said, rules are communication.

I think it is a little bit more than that... The Rules are a special type of communication with the word "Rule" attached to signify a specific social context, or contract if you will.

A rule must:
Declare appropriate or non-appropriate behavior
Define the set of people that must obey
Declare the list of punishments available to the offenders.

And only one other thing. This communication must be set out BEFORE HAND, and understood by all participants.

That's not so hard, is it? From laws and courtrooms, to games of chance and recreation, these communications (written or verbal, learned or implied) make this crazy world go round.

__________________
3.141592654
Hey, if you are impressed with my memorizing pi to 10 digits, you should see the size of my penis.

BigBen

And yes, I can think of no other thing more important to me than the rules I live by. Without rules, I wouldn't know what to do. I have been in social situations that were new to me, and the first thing I ask is "Are there any rules I should know of?" I am absolutely uncomfortable - to the point of neurotic - if I don't know the rules.

Pass the joint to the left, and it is puff-puff-pass, and don't get all of your slobber all over the end.

__________________
3.141592654
Hey, if you are impressed with my memorizing pi to 10 digits, you should see the size of my penis.

Jinn

I'm a mixed basket on this one. On the one hand, I think rules are wonderful things when they:

Thank you Ben, well said.

I think they bring a lot of order to otherwise unordered things that could quickly dissolve into chaos. A forum like this would be horrible if people were free to call me a cocksucking dillhole and tell me I'm a this or that just for disagreeing. I've been in forums like that, and while they were amusing in adolescense they quickly.. became less amusing. Rules are necessary to keep things the way "we" like it.

On the OTHER hand, I absolutely hate authority. In all forms, I've always had a problem with authority. Psychologists have said that most of the time this comes early in childhood when you don't think the authority is being fair or that you are more able than the authority. I definitely know when it happened for me.. when a teacher in elementary school would be making absolutely ridiculous rules without being able to justify their "spirit." If you ever justify a rule with "because I said so" I'll be very apt to want to punch you in the face.. on the spot. Unless you can justify the reason for the law and what it will accomplish, I will not respect it. I had far too many "authorities" who were far more ignorant than myself trying to influence my behavior. I will not be told how to do something by someone too inept to do it themselves. This was manifested (and still is) in many ways, but in elementary school it was computers. I was "against the rules" to do certain things on the computers, because the teacher didnt know what it did. So the justification was that my teacher was too ignorant to figure out what it did. This is not a valid reason for a rule. If you're stupid, educate yourself. Likewise, this "spirit" is far more important to me than the actual rule. If there is a rule against drunk driving, telling me that I "shouldn't drink and drive because the law says so" is ridiculous and will only make me angry. Telling me its there to protect the citizens from undue harm at the hands of a driver with bad reaction time, that I'll agree to. I can understand wanting to be safe, and I can understand not wanting to be hit by a drunk driver. The same applies to speed laws. If someone tries to justify it by saying that I shouldn't speed becuase the sign says so, I'll tell them to get fucked and put the pedal to the floor. If they tell me its to protect the citizens from reckless drivers, and to protect me from putting myself in a dangerous situation.. sure I'll take that. As such, however.. if I'm meeting with the spirit of the law and not the letter of the law, I will do so. In the above situation, if I were not being reckless and not endangering myself.. but speeding, I would be okay with it. I would also be quite angry if someone enforced the letter of the law on me for driving 5 miles over on an otherwise empty highway. That deviates from the REASON for the law, and simply wishes to enforce a law in a situation it doesn't apply to. They are the first examples that come to mind, but there are plenty more.

So, I guess the moral of the story is that you must make a rule that has

but ALSO, make sure that the law is being enforced for a valid reason and not simply because of its existance. Laws DO NOT apply to all situations. They are designed to prevent a certain behavior in a limited set of situations, and are not always applicable.

__________________
"I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel

Yakk

*nod*, the existance of Rules makes the moderators here more powerful, because the threat of punishment is more efficient than actually having to punish people. The same is true in society -- the existance of Rules makes the police more powerful than they would be otherwise, because the threat of police action when you break the rules is communicated somewhat effectively.

Rules make the enforcers more powerful -- Rules act as force multipliers on the use of, or potential to use, force.

Making Rules is useful to enforcers.

I agree with all of this.

But, I cannot grasp how the Rules themselves make any act right or wrong.

"He knew it was against the rules", used to justify punishment, seems to me to be no justification at all. Either what was done was wrong and deserves the punishment, or it was not wrong or the punishment is excessive. "The man said he'd get shot if he didn't hand over his money".

The fact the act was against the Rules can place judgement on the Rule itself -- if a non-wrong act is against the Rules, then the act of making the Rule, as any other threat, is an evil.

Similarly, if you say "stop choking that man, or I will shoot you" is a threat. So is "if you murder someone, I will put you in jail." Some threats are good -- so some Rules are good to make.

But, how is obeying Rules just because they are Rules any more right than bowing to any other use of force or threat?

__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

MSD

I respect the rules that people set regarding their own property, but ourtside of that, I refuse to acknowledge the legitimacy* of any rule, law, or regulation that does not explicitly and solely protect others from an infringement of ther rights by my action.

* - This doesn't mean I don't always follow them if doing so is the easiest way to go about things. It's kind of like a country refusing to acknowledge another's existance yet stationing troops along the common border.

JustJess

I also get very angry about laws and rules that are designed to "protect me against myself", such as a seat belt law. If I'm too stupid to wear a seat belt, so be it. Hopefully, I'll take my genes out of the pool early. But don't tell me how to take care of myself... that's an invasion of my privacy.

But otherwise... if the rule makes sense, then yes, I expect to follow it and have other people follow it. I dislike rules that are designed only for the benefit of the rule-maker.

__________________
My heart knows me better than I know myself, so I'm gonna let it do all the talkin'.

BigBen

When one says "He knew it was against the rules", what they are really saying is "That person actively disobeyed this social contract which was made aware to all participants, and he is therefore subject to the appropriate discipline". They are just saying it in a less winded way.

No-one obeys rules "just because they are rules". Again, there is logic behind the set of behaviors, and consciously or sub-sonsciously we agree to them.

You are digging down into the deeper levels of rules and our adherence to them, and are wondering why people do not question them more often. I have had the opportunity to answer this question before, in a very structured environment of military training. I would argue that environment has more rules than any other.

When questioned by a student as to the logic behind doing something one way instead of another, a military instructor usually gets rather flustered and responds with the "I told you so, that's why" response.

When I explain the rationale, the answer is usually, "oh" or "Okay, that makes more sense now...". Unfortuantely, there are times when someone is questioning the rationale behing the rules in an inappropriate time. If the pin on the grenade is pulled, it is not the time to question the rules and discuss more efficient ways of doing things.

Yakk, I hate to say it, but sometimes "I said so" has to suffice. Even worse than that, sometimes you will not be allowed to ask the question at all, and for the sake of brevity the "Don't ask why, just fucking do it" is also implied, usually by tone of voice.

__________________
3.141592654
Hey, if you are impressed with my memorizing pi to 10 digits, you should see the size of my penis.

fhqwhgads

-rethought my comments and posted below-

Phage

Rules are of course a form of communication stating what the expected code of conduct is, and generally what the punishment would be for deviating from that code. Any number of arguments can be made about what makes a good rule (a seductive path that MrSelfDestruct could not resist) but there is also an inherent value to rules just because they exist. Allow me to explain why.

To make an analogy lets look at a home game of soccer in an open field. The two teams of children stake out the edges of the play area and start the game. At some point one of the players kicks the ball out of bounds, and then someone questions the worth of the boundaries. The field is large enough that there is plenty of room to continue playing outside the current bounds; expanding them to cover the entire field would be best. All the children agree that it would be best that way, but the fact remains that when the ball was kicked the bounds were crossed.

When the child kicked the ball over the bounds he was breaking an arbitrary rule; it did not really matter where they put the boundaries. However it is not allowable to simply run around breaking rules just because they are bad rules. If you agree to play by the rules then regardless of the worth of the rule you have a responsibility to follow them.

Jinn

Now see that isn't the message that your analogy shows me. It shows me that the boy was smart to break the arbitrary rule. He saw that there was no "spirit" behind the rule but to contain them to a smaller part of the field. In breaking it, his peers also noticed that the law was unnecesary and quickly modified their behavior. He was not punished for breaking the rule, and he shouldn't have. If no one broke rules, we wouldn't have women or black people voting. Rules and laws are meant to be challenged -- if they can be defended and justified, they are a binding social contract. Otherwise, they are worthless "because I said so" rules.

__________________
"I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel

fhqwhgads

People are (for the most part), rational beings. They understand cause and effect.

If I touch a hot stove, it will cause pain. Based on this consequence, I can choose whether or not I want to touch the stove. If I choose to touch a hot stove and burn my hand, I can choose to do that.

"Rules" are just a set of "if --> then" statements. So when I say "they knew the rule, and they broke it, so they deserve the punishment", I'm saying "he knew the consequences of what his actions would be, and he chose to commit the act, so he chose to accept the consequences." In that regard, I am making no judgement as to whether the consequence fits the act, or whether the act itself was right or wrong. I am simply saying that he knew the outcome, and proceeded with that outcome in mind.

Make sense at all?

sadistikdreams

I think rules are good guidelines, but I'll break a rule/law if I think breaking it is morally right.

Like, if someone I know is in a prison, and it's on fire, I will go in to "break them out", breaking the rules, BUT doing what's right.

__________________
"Besides the noble art of getting things done, there is the noble art of leaving things undone.
The wisdom of life consists in the elimination of non-essentials."
-Lin Yutang

hearts, by d.a.

Phage

Well, I never did say how they ended up dealing with the breaking of the rule or even that the child who broke the rule thought it was needlessly restricting. The point is that there are ways to challenge a rule but wantonly breaking them is not the way to do it.
----

Here is another analogy in which I will draw more clear parallels. You are a parent with a son, who you instruct to never play ball in the front yard (under the reasoning that he could stray into the road and be smashed flat). One day the road is blocked off from both ends for sewer maintenance and the little boy, deciding that the rule makes no sense now, decides to go and play ball in the front yard.

The child is of course correct that the danger is removed and the rule pointless. However, it is not his place to simply disregard the rule without consulting with you the parent. The parallel here is that the parent is the government, and the child the citizen.

When you let a citizen decide which rules they are going to follow and which they will ignore, they in essence have no rules at all. If everyone reacted this way there would be no point of a government because everyone would be doing whatever they darn well pleased anyway. If you decided not to punish that child for breaking your rule he would most likely never change from the anarchist little snot that seems to be running rampant in the world today.

The point is that it is not your place to make up your own rules as you go along. Think for a moment about how your philosophy would utterly destroy society and civilization, and get back to me.

Pip

Amen! I like civilization. I like to think that laws and rules have been thought out by a lot of reasonably intelligent people to make life run as smooth and fair and predictable as possible. Sometimes it gets out of hand and becomes more complicated than helpful, but mostly I can see a greater good in laws and rules.

TM875

Life, by definition, is not fair. Life running predictably and smooth is incredibly boring and not really worth living.

Rules are created by someone in power who wanted to set up a stipulation or a pattern of action that he wanted to see. All rules have only the motivation of the rule-creator in mind. Those who do not approve of the power, or wish to usurp the power and take control themselves, will break the subsequent rule as a way of showing "Hey - I'm more important than you".

The ironic thing here is the outside view. For example, there is a road in a neighboring town that is blocked off for construction. While I was out that day, and seeing a large amount of cars driving down the "Local traffic only" road, I thought to myself "What assholes...". However, later in the night, inconvienced by not being able to get where I wanted to quickly, I, too, travelled down said road. "This is stupid - damn construction".

My point is that the rules are in the eye of the rule-breaker. They may feel that they have a legitimate reason for breaking the rule. I'd wager that anyone who has ever broken a law felt that, even though it was wrong, that the law was not acceptable in that certain situation or that they were above the law.

__________________
"I've made only one mistake in my life. But I made it over and over and over. That was saying 'yes' when I meant 'no'. Forgive me."

martinguerre

Foucault has a lot of smart things to say about this...and i think you're really on the right track with this statement. I think there is some communication back from the ruled that shows up in rule making, namely the subject matter.

if a dictator has a rule about not eating cotton candy on sundays, you can be sure of two things. somebody most likely did eat cotton candy on a sunday, and in doing so they in some way resisted that dicatorial power.

silly example, but i think it gets the point across.

i'm always much more interested in who makes a law or rule legitimate than anything else about it. who we choose to obey is one of the most important decisions we make as human beings.

choosing to obey the rules of those communities we trust and love (and who deserve support) is not cowardice or slavery, even when it sometimes restricts our choices. and when we find ourselves in conflict with fundamentally good communities, it is about finding ways to dissent to a rule while still being loyal to the larger idea of that order.

the reverse is also true. choosing the saftey of obedience when that order is unjust or immoral is not duty, honor or being a good citizen. it is moral cowardice to refuse to stand for what is right simply because there are people with power who disagree with you. assenting to injustice on the basis that it was "the law" is an empty excuse, and one that we see for folly with the passage of time.

__________________
For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life.

-John 3:16

Schwan

I think rules are a fine thing, up until a certain moment. Not that I want to start a discussion over this, but let's just say that I think that issues like the death penalty are a great example of how the idea of rules is abused.

Seeker

Yakk, I think you are distiguishing the difference between the people that blindly follow 'rules' because they are rules (or social contracts as BigBen931 mentioned earlier), and people who have actively sought to understand 'why' rules are in place and have the mental capacity to decide how they relate to their moral code, and therefore will decide that an act was or was not 'against the rules' (read; if they are beneficial social contracts that are worthy of being upheld).

There have been many examples of people fighting for amendments to rules based on careful thought and consideration.

There are others however, who are just sheep and follow the rules, they don't want to expend any energy asking the why's and how-comes of rules.

I am not sure if this is clear or correct, but that is how I would explain it.

__________________
To those who wander but who are not lost...

~ Knowledge is not something you acquire, it is something you open yourself to.

politicophile

Rules have value even when they aren't particularly just or reasonable, especially when it comes to the government. The most important attribute of a government is that it writes down the rules that it will follow and then follows those rules. Without this "rule of law", everything falls apart, as you are living in a despotic system where the government is not governed by rules: the sovereign can do as he pleases and citizens have no recourse. Thus, I would rather live under a regime that was constrained by stupid and annoying rules than one that lacked any such constraints. There is nothing more dangerous than arbitrary government.

Then there's the whole Crito argument: disobeying an unjust law will undermine the authority of the governing body in general, leading to the abandonment of all the just laws, as well. Again in this example, there is a risk that the rules that protect you will disappear.

A world without rules is, to borrow a famous phrase from Sir Thomas Hobbes, "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."

__________________
The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. ~John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

justjt

Rules should be a tool used for guidance and protection of everyone and in alot of cases rules when they grow up become laws.
Some need rules to feel like there life has meaning..
To some breaking all the rules is the meaning of their life...
But without rules of some sort there would be chaos....to some that would be a dream come true but in reality most would not survive a society based on this idea.
Where we get into trouble....is with those who make and enforce the rules letting their personal agendas run the show.

MSD

The difference between disputing the rules of soccer and the equally (and often more) arbitrary laws under which we are required to live is that nobody is forced to play soccer. I can find no ethical justification for a rule which protects nobody but the person who would otherwise break it. On the other hand, soccer is a sport in which a set of rules has evolved to keep the game running smoothly for all those who choose to participate. People come up with new sports in order to create a game in which their own arbitrary rules can be followed, whereas people cannot simply secede or claim a new piece of land for their own country in order to create agreeable laws. If the latter were possible, I would have done it by now.

Phage

I am not sure where you live, but wherever that is you can still attempt to claim some land for your own country. In fact there are still some places in the world where you can probably get away with it without attracting the attention of anything more than a small tribe of a few hundred people.

The problem you will run into is that in a place where you can claim some land to make your own rules, other people can do the same. Whose rules take precedence? Unfortunately for a lone wolf like yourself it usually comes down to a fight that will either force you off the area they claim or result in your death. This concept holds true wherever you are in the world, except I suspect where you are it would result in conflict with a much larger adversary.

But... I also would guess that you are not self-sufficient; or at least not enough to provide yourself with the luxury you are accustomed to. If allowed on your own you would have problems providing yourself with food, shelter, or maybe adequate medical care (we will just assume that self-defense is out of the question).

So what you are really saying is that you are angry that you cannot personally dictate your own rules while reaping the benefits of a society that you don't really want to participate in. That what you would really love to do is claim a little area in which to create a miniature monarchy, and you are bitching that everyone else has all the good spots.

If you want a place without rules, sail into international waters and take up residence. It is unlikely that anyone will invade you, and I doubt your previous country will miss you.

flstf

This is what happens in a society such as ours that passes a lot of silly laws (rules) that a large percentage of the population ignore. Every law creates a large group of people who will become lawbreakers and begin to loose respect for the law in general. Laws (rules) should only be made if absolutely necessary and if there is any question should not be made at all.

Examples of the above:
- Seatbelt laws.
- Bicycle and motorcycle helmet laws.
- Sunday blue laws.
- Drinking age laws. (old enough to die in combat, too young to drink)
- Some drug prohibition laws especially marijuana. (like alchohol prohibition did, creates a huge group of lawbreakers)
- No alchohol in parks (my wife and I were busted in a Seattle waterfront park for having a wine, baquette and brie cheese lunch.

The list goes on and on. There seems to be no lack of human activity that someone (government entity or group) doesn't want to regulate.

And then there is the unfairness factor in how laws are enforced. Small time $10 robbers and drug users get 5 years hard time and celebrities and CEOs steal hundreds of thousands from our pension funds and get 6 months in a country club.

Leo

Depends on the rule. There are good rules and bad rules. "Everyone must drive on the (right/left) side of the road" - good rule. "Finish everything on your plate" - bad rule, especially if one of those things is a brussel sprout.

Charlatan

Sure we have rules, and as many have pointed out, there are good ones and bad ones.

The other thing to remember is that our rules are not written in stone. Rules get challenged and changed all the time. It is why we have the Court system and a system of law makers.

Laws (rules) change with the time. Sodomy was against the rules in Texas... now it is not. Some rules (laws) are still on the books for hundreds of years ago but they are not enforced.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

Jinn

A much better analogy, and I even stopped reading to say .. "yea, that's true." However, I think there are a few flaws with this argument. Assuming that no one would obey laws and anarchy would evolve if people chose to break laws ignores the current status of the government. People ignore or break laws all the time, but anarchy has yet to insue.

Specifically, I found this idea quite interesting:
In a perfect world, I'd agree with you. The law-questioner should always talk with the law-creator, because they might agree with your dissonance -- they might even be pursuaded to remove the law or give you amnesty to it. However, in the enormous republic(an) State that we have now, communicating directly with the law-creator isn't as simple as the kid waiting for the parent to get home. It could take weeks or months to get a reply, and not necessarily a satisfactory one. If the parent refused to let the child play in the street even in the traffic-ending construction, and failed to provide a reason -- then I believe the child would have been correct to disobey it. A law is worthless without a justification. Attempting to enforce a law when it no longer applies is simply asking for rebellion.

Further into your metaphor, what if the parent made a rule to "not tell anyone about our 'special' time." This would be analogous to mistreatment by the government, covered up by laws. Would the child (citizen) still be risking anarchy and de-civilization by refusing to abide by the censorship laws? I, for one, would HOPE that the child would break the law and tell someone that he was being molested.

__________________
"I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel

Phage

Just because some people selectively break laws in a working system does not mean that it is an acceptable practice. The system has mechanisms to deal with a certain amount of violators, and this should be seen as a strength rather than an attack on the system.

For instance, people are murdered all the time. Our society can and has withstood the strain such actions have, but if everyone decided it was ok to ignore the law and murder whenever they felt like it the society would fail. To be fair that is a wildly sensational example, but look at a rather mundane comparison. Many people exceed the speed limit and some people completely ignore it. Our society deals with the worst offenders without much event, but imagine if everyone completely ignored the speed regulations. I suspect that the result would be catastrophic.

I agree that it can be frustrating attempting to change a pointless law by going through endless bureaucracy, but I don't think the explanation of "Well, asking you if I could play in the front yard would take too long" would fly.

The beauty of a Republic is that everyone has representation. The horror of reality is that mistakes will happen in even the most careful system. While it may be very tempting to "fix" mistakes on your own, realise that by adopting such a mindset you are destroying all that the Republic you think you are fixing tried to create.

I am not disputing that there are bad laws, and at a certain point such laws cannot be obeyed. In your example the parent has made some rules that should not be obeyed, but understand it is the fault of the governing body and not a failing of the concept of rules. The child is indeed risking anarchy and de-civilization; of course in this situation the child will most likely immediately move into another better form of governing by a foster parent. In some cases anarchy and de-civilization are acceptable risks in order to overthrow an unsalvagable government, but universal disregard to rules makes civilization impossible in the first place.

FatFreeGoodness

“But, I cannot grasp how the Rules themselves make any act right or wrong.”
Two points:
1) You will agree that a parent must limit what their small child may eat, and when. Otherwise the child will neglect “veggies at mealtime” in favor of “skittles at will”. Suppose the parent sets the rule that candy is to be eaten only when dispensed by the parent. Now suppose that just after lunch the parent observes the child eating a candy bar supplied by a friend. It’s just after lunch so no meal is spoiled, the friend is trusted, and no real harm is done. However, the act of breaking the rule is of itself a serious transgression. The larger rule is that the child is under the authority of the parents. The child is not free to decide when and where to obey rules. If the child feels free to flout rules at will, then it will certainly annoy many people and possible create danger for itself and others.
2) If everyone is free to decide that a particular rule is pointless and need not be obeyed, then there is no point in any rules at all. For instance, jaywalking is illegal supposedly because it places not only the walker but drivers at risk. You may conclude in a specific instance that there is no danger to anyone, and you can cross at will. However, if this is acceptable then the law itself is pointless, since it could be phrased “Don’t cross unless you think it’s safe.” The rule would not be in force if this was acceptable.

“I respect the rules that people set regarding their own property, but outside of that, I refuse to acknowledge the legitimacy* of any rule, law, or regulation that does not explicitly and solely protect others from an infringement of their rights by my action.”
You require that an entire chain of justification be presented in each and every rule? I don’t think that’s possible. And what about those rules whose justification is “This way of doing things is not necessarily better than other ways, but it is better that we are all on the same page, so we have arbitrarily chosen this one.”? (Example: Standardized currency.)

“There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power government has is the power to crack down on criminals. When there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.”
Sounds profound and all, but it's hogwash. Anyone who manages people will tell you it’s much easier to lead a group when everyone obeys not only the letter but also the spirit of the rules. In such cases the number of rules can be kept to a minimum. It’s when people get away with as much as possible that you need more rules.

“I can find no ethical justification for a rule which protects nobody but the person who would otherwise break it.”
Also sounds profound and noble. However, in reality it’s crap. What about the afore mentioned small child? Oh, it’s ok as long as we are talking about children?
What about the mentally incompetent? OK, exceptions for them as well.
What about those who hurt only themselves but others must clean up the mess? Example: failure to follow fire codes in building a private dwelling. I suspect you will argue that we have no right to decide what level of risk is acceptable, and we can let those who are incorrect burn. But most people think you are wrong. See previous argument about “if you are free to decide which rules to obey, then there are NO rules that have force.”
OK… let's just consider rules that protect no one but the one being injured, and where the injured is a sound-minded adult. I have a hard time thinking of an example of these. Drugs? No, since buying drugs keeps pushers and smugglers around, and they do affect others. Drugs when you make/grow your own? But you do admit that addicts tend to be a burden to those around them, don’t you? Doesn’t it make sense to prevent this?
How will you decide whether anyone else is being protected? Is this another case of "just ignore rules you don't like."? Again... if you are free to do this, then basically you are saying you are free to ignore any rule at all.

FatFreeGoodness

"In a perfect world, I'd agree with you. The law-questioner should always talk with the law-creator, because they might agree with your dissonance -- they might even be persuaded to remove the law or give you amnesty to it. However, in the enormous republic(an) State that we have now, communicating directly with the law-creator isn't as simple as the kid waiting for the parent to get home. It could take weeks or months to get a reply, and not necessarily a satisfactory one. If the parent refused to let the child play in the street even in the traffic-ending construction, and failed to provide a reason -- then I believe the child would have been correct to disobey it. A law is worthless without a justification."

a) A law is worthless without justification? Hokum, I say! If a law is passed for good and proper reasons, you personally not knowing the reason does not mean the reason is not valid, nor that the law is worthless. As a practical matter, in a representative government such explanations are almost always available with a little effort.

b) You first state that the law-questioner should talk with the law-creator and ask that the law be suspended or revoked before simply breaking it. You then say that this is, however, not practical. After all, the law-making body may not agree with you. Do you see the flaw in this logic? If everyone agreed with a particular rule at all times, then there would be no need for the rule in the first place. The rule exists to keep you from doing something that you want to do, but which the law-giver (in our case, the representative governing body) has specifically defined as being forbidden.

c) You suggest that if the child reasons that the rule (don’t play in the street) is not really valid, and no satisfactory reason is supplied, then the child is correct to break the rule.
This is wrong. If the child was capable of making such decisions, there would be no need for rules in the first place. The child may be incapable of judging the need for the rule. The child may not have all the information (Sure there is no traffic due to construction. But there may be an exclusion zone due to blasting.) It is often good for the parent to explain the rule, but this is NOT a requirement. Indeed, one rule is that the child must obey the parent even in instances where the child can see no harm (even pleasure) is disobeying. Children who do not do this are very unpleasant to be around, which is ultimately to their disadvantage..

politicophile

In Plato's dialogue Crito, Socrates argues (pretty convincingly, I think) that it is better for him to obey a totally unjust law, even at the cost of his own life, than for him to escape, save his own life and violate the law. The justification is essentially that all manner of bad things would happen if a respected figure like Socrates decided that he could disregard any law that he decided didn't make sense. It certainly is something to think about...

__________________
The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. ~John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

flstf

What you say has the ring of truth to it, the problem is there is no end to the list of things we do that may cause a burden to society. As I understand it, during prohibition even the Mayors and Police Chiefs of most major cities could be found in the local speakeasys. The law was disobeyed by so many citizens that they had to eventually repeal it.

Sure, there are many good laws that protect us, but our government has a bad track record of going overboard. The trick is of course, where do you draw the line. Like most people, I don't know, but I will say that most times it is more important to err on the side of freedom over safety. Just how much control should the government have over our lifestyles and how many years should we wait before bad laws get repealed?

Also our polititians from both parties are beholden to and depend on funds from special interest groups for their survival. Many laws get passed that seem to make little sense to the average citizen. The recently passed bankruptcy rules that do not excempt those with horrendous medical bills is a good example. Unfortunately there is no easy way to disobey this one.

flstf

I agree. But not many of us have the wisdom of Socrates. Disobeying laws that many of us consider unjust intrusions into our lifestyles does (and will) cause disrespect for laws in general. As an example, laws against murder are just, laws controlling how consenting adults have sex in the privacy of their homes are not. And there are thousands of laws in between.

martinguerre

i don't think the text of Crito adequatly deals with the issue of indivual moral agency. Socrates assumes that his example will be binding, and that the obsevers will not perform a moral analysis, but simply mimesis.

if the world was only copy cats, then he has a point. but if we expect others to be moral agents, then it is reasonable to stand in opposition to a bad law, while legitimating the idea of the rule of law itself.

clearly there are examples of this happening. indian resistance to the british was conducted with civil disobedience....they are now the world's largest democracy, and retain a legal system based on the common law. Hobbes and Socrates, and the great defenders of the law have a point. There are things worse than annoying laws. But there are such things as profoundly unjust laws, ones requiring that a moral human being stand in opposition to them lest they become broken down by complicity.

__________________
For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life.

-John 3:16

Phage

The law was repealed not only because it was a bad law (as many people recognised) but also because the violators created a much larger problem than before. If everyone had followed the law but lobbied against it through the appropriate channels then people would have had to give up a pleasurable activity for a few years. Instead their disregard for the law created organized crime rings that slaughtered people right and left. This is an interesting example for you to choose because the penalties for selectively ignoring laws remain with us today, killing their children.

politicophile

I see this as a sign of Plato's idealized (and highly unrealistic) vision of government in general. The Athenian government was right about most things most of the time, or so I believe Plato would say. If the regime is inherently just, then it is easy to see why Plato would be opposed to actions that would destasbilize the regime, such as civil disobedience.

Perhaps, then, Socrates is actually failing to deal with the possibility of an immoral regime, rather than neglecting moral analysis in general. Alternatively, perhaps Socrates' comments about the importance of following the laws apply only to generally moral regimes such as Athens and would not apply at all to fundamentally unjust regimes. Interesting...

__________________
The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. ~John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

flstf

Prohibition was the law for 13 years, a long time to wait for a glass of wine. The point I was trying to make is that these kinds of laws do more harm than good, especially when a large number of otherwise law abiding citizens will disobey it, causing a general disrespect for the law in general.

Phage

And my point was that mistakes will inevitably happen, and when they do you should not simply break the law as it leads to much larger problems.

martinguerre

I could buy that. At least from his view, the order there worked and was coherant with his worldview. I won't say it was moral, it was patriarchal and was based on slavery, but as an observer in that context, it is unlikely that Socrates/Plato saw any wrong in the system worth challenging it.

but what i would add is that i don't hold that civil disobedience has to destabilize. that's what i meant by my example of indian resistance. far more effective than armed sepratism, civil disobedience provided a context of affirming the idea of order while explicitly rejecting the order that currently existed.

__________________
For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life.

-John 3:16