I don’t make the rules, I just get in trouble when I break them. So, I try pretty hard not to break the rules.
If you ever find yourself driving around the Twin Cities, stuck behind a green Subaru Outback that’s going the speed limit? Just pass me. Tailgating isn’t going to get me to break the speed limit.
A rule should not be followed or broken based upon it’s status as a rule, it should be determined upon the efficacy of the rule to do what it is intended to do. To that end, some rules should always be followed because they fulfill some social, moral, ethical, or safety purpose. Similarly, some rules should always be broken because they fail to fulfill those needs or, worse, can contribute to harming them. Most rules will fall somewhere in the middle.
In fact, I would consider it an underdeveloped sense of morality and/or risk assessment for one to ALWAYS follow the rules or strive to break as many as possible. And, in my observation, it’s often the easiest ones to follow that can do the most good to society as a whole, but for which the tragedy of the commons can create real issues.
And what should one do when different rules contradict eachother? Consider a common situation in traffic, where the laws dictate a speed limit, but where the social rule is to go with traffic. If the flow of traffic is above the speed limit, which rule should one follow? The answer should be that it depends. The purpose of a speed limit is supposed to be safety, but in many cases going slower than the surrounding traffic can create greater danger than going slightly faster. In some other situations, the flow of traffic isn’t safe and one should go slower to protect oneself and those around .
Speaking for myself, I have no issue flowing with traffic in most cases, even if it’s well above the speed limit, because it’s just safer to have everyone around me going roughly the same speed and people going faster or slower can create difficult to predict and react to situations. But there are a few spots where I honestly feel the speed limit is faster than I feel safe driving, regardless of flow. One area I drive through daily has cars parking on the side of the road or making unexpected stops or turns and plenty of pedestrians crossing the street. This is all due to it being residential on one side and commercial on the other, while the road itself is a through street so it has a higher speed limit than it might otherwise have. Especially at night, when visibility is low and people will be walking across the street to or from the bars, I often go well slower.
And while that’s a more practical explanation, I think this should apply to everything. I’m not going to avoid doing something I think is a moral action because of fear of of punishment for breaking a rule or do something I think is immoral because a rule says I should. That said, if any moral issues are slight, risk assessment will come into play with regard to potential punishment for breaking a rule, but that’s generally not much of an incentive as I believe that if people only follow a rule because of fear of punishment, it’s probably a bad rule.
Though, despite all of this, I do tend to follow most rules most of the time.
So this is your rule for whether or not to follow rules?
The problem with this is that it requires everyone (including the most ignorant or foolish) to decide for themselves, based on the information available to them at the time, the “efficacy of the rule to do what it is intended to do.” Some people can do this adequately, but not everyone every time, nor even everyone who thinks they can. Maybe better to have the experts judge the efficacy of the rules and then adjust the rules themselves based on their judgments?
I think I primarily follow the spirit of the rule, and it just so happens that usually this means following the letter of the rule, too. When the spirit of the rule doesn’t apply to a situation, then I don’t follow the letter of the rule.
For example, take an office dress code – say I worked at a university where it was forbidden to the faculty/staff to wear sandals, the spirit of the law being that we are to maintain a professional appearance that distinguishes us as staff among the [sandal-wearing] students.
When classes are in session, I would follow this rule because I endorse its spirit – I agree that it’s a good idea to have staff dress professionally around students, and I personally want to be recognizable as a staff person and not mistaken for a student. But when classes are not in session and my job and/or office location is such that I am unlikely to encounter any students at all except for a few stragglers as I walk across campus to and from my car, then I would wear my sandals to work on hot days. The impetus behind the rule is no longer there.
I break rules that I don’t agree with as long as doing so doesn’t inconvenience anyone else. For example, I might go through a long red light late at night if there are no other cars around, but I’d never get in the 15 items or fewer line at the store with 16 items.
Bolding mine.
Well, that is one ignorant thought.
Fifteen MPH in a school zone isn’t a revenue generating limit. It’s to keep kids from getting killed. Same with restrictions in construction zones, blind corners, business areas, no right on red at certain intersections, etc.
But go ahead, keep believing it’s all about the money.
Rules? In a knife fight?
Regards,
Shodan
I am a rule follower by nature. In my field of computer technology, understanding how things work means understanding the rules.
On a less technical level, understanding the rules and following them relieves me of having to think about things. One door is marked “Enter”, the other is marked “Exit”. If I follow the rule of consistently using the door marked “Enter” to enter the building, then I don’t have to think about which door to use, and I avoid collisions. (Reading some of the posters, it sounds like they would consistently use the door marked “Exit”. :dubious:)
And consistently adhering to rules relieves me of possible undesirable negative consequences.
All that said, yes, I follow the flow of traffic, which in my area is often about 80 MPH. Having lived and driven here for more than 30 years, I have learned that you will not get pulled over. If the pull-over rate were different, I would respond differently.
Which brings up a salient point - risk assessment. While the first layer is rule following, IMHO for most people the second layer is risk assessment - will I get caught, who would catch me, what would be the implications if I do get caught, is it a law or a localized rule, etc. Like most people, there are probably many rules that I do not follow, based on risk assessment. Mostly traffic/driving.
I can’t help thinking that for some people the inclination to not follow rules on principle, combined with ineffective risk assessment, creates a lifetime of chaos. I personally hate chaos.
Ditto. I can’t even jaywalk without getting caught, so I follow the rules.
I’d like to be tough and live on the edge of right and wrong, but the health insurance benefits suck.
Most rules make sense and are in place to ease safety and efficiency. Those are easy and smart to follow; I like making things easy on my fellow humans that I encounter daily.
However, the cannabis prohibition rules in this country are extremely stupid, IMO, and I don’t spend even a moment with concerns about breaking them. Well, except for the legal consequences, of course.
I’ve never blindly followed rules, even as a child. When I refused to draw trees as brown or green in kindergarten, I was interviewed by a school psychologist who asked me why. I told him I liked purple better. He asked if I knew trees were green. I told him of course I did, anyone could see that. I was sent back to class and the teacher was told I was 'creative."
As an adult, I wear my seatbelt when driving and follow the speed limit within 5 miles. I do this because these are rules that make sense and protect me and other drivers. Sensible rules. Ok rules.
Social rules I consider artificial in the extreme and rarely follow them except at work where I’m expected to not only follow but enforce them. On my own time, I do what I like. No one is ‘beneath’ me, just like no one is ‘above’ me. I don’t understand those concepts at all and have no intention of distinguishing among people in such a manner.
I’ve always been the square peg in a world of round holes and I’ve always liked it that way.
If you will permit a possible hijack, I’d appreciate some opinions on a situation I’ve encountered more than once. In short, it involves swimming where prohibited, and dogs off leash.
Much of Indiana’s shoreline along Lake Michigan is state and national park. Other is private. If you walk a couple of miles along the shore in certain places, you can pass from one to the other without realizing any difference. In the national park, swimming is at your own risk. In the State Park, swimming is in a designated area. Dogs are to be leashed in both.
In all areas, 99% of people gather around the parking/access areas. Walk a quarter mile, and you will be 100 yards from the nearest person. The lake is generally quite shallow out for 100 yards or more: maybe up to waist/chest level, then up to a sandbar.
Let’s say you are at the beach, with your dog, on a calm day. Your dog loves to chase sticks in the water, and will do so without paying any attention to passers-by. You are attentive to being sure your dog is far away from any passing people/dogs.
Do you pay careful attention to where on the beach you are, and let that determine whether you will step into the lake past your ankles, or throw a stick for your dog?
Also, realistically, the only repercussions for breaking the leash/swimming rules would be (most likely) a reminder from a lifeguard or, at worst, eviction from the park for the day.
I take the dog to the beach in the evening, after the lifeguards have gone home. I have a couple of beers most nights, or I bring a thermos bottle of pre-mixed martinis from the freezer on special occasions. We are conscientious and respectful, don’t let the dog run wild, clean up after ourselves, and are very quiet drunks.
Dogs and alcohol are both absolutely prohibited at our beach. No one has ever asked us to stop or leave. These are two of the rules I feel I can violate without compunction.
Well of course there are a few logical exceptions. But there are speed limits on almost **all **roads everywhere in the US and the vast, vast majority of them are not for any unique safety reasons. When the national 55 MPH limit was imposed it was specifically stated that it was to save gas (because of the 1973 oil shortage). But a decade later when people had gotten used to higher gas prices and felt it was no longer needed bureaucrats refused because it made their State & local govts a lot of revenue. Then they hired safety nazis to insist that the 55 limit was really to save lives (which it was not, and does not).
This is real. Municipalities will conduct precursory surveys & studies to see the best locations to place & enforce speed traps to maximize the amount of revenue. And the fines themselves have ridiculously outpaced inflation. Speeding tickets used to be $40-$50, now they’re $200-$250*!* The States get a cut as well as the townships. And police have definite quotas. Its all about the money.
I tend to act similarly to DrF. Part of my analysis involves asking what the purpose of the rule is, who else is impacted, and what the risk is of violating. I can’t imagine why the state chooses to prohibit swimming in some places, while the national park says “at your risk.” But they do. So if I swim where not permitted, I try to do it where I won’t get caught, and if I get caught, I say, “Sorry, didn’t know. Won’t let it happen again.”
With the dog, I always clean up after him, and make sure he is nowhere near other people or dogs who might be bothered. I guess if someone were terrified of dogs such that seeing a golden retriever a long way from them prevented them from walking that particular stretch of beach - then I’m a jerk.
Actually, that reminds me of the rules here - Don’t be a jerk. I generally try to follow that rule, without trying to avoid EVERY conceivable adverse effect on every conceivable person. These days there seem to be so many specific rules governing so many actions/situations. You can almost paralyze yourself trying to find out what they all are.
If I break a rule, whether dog off leash, speeding, whatever, I am willing to pay the consequences if caught. I usually go the speed of traffic without checking either my speedometer or the posted limit. Generally that tends to be 5-10 MPH over. If I’m caught, that would suck, but I’ll pay the ticket.
I put a high priority on treating others with courtesy and safety. But if I’m not aware that I’m bothering, inconveniencing, or endangering anyone else, I may decline to follow some rule of which I’m aware. Note, my emphasis on not bothering others causes me to restrain my actions more than applicable rules might say. For example, I could play my stereo in my yard or otherwise make noise at certain times, but I don’t because I don’t want to annoy my neighbors.
As a general matter, though, I tend to follow rules. For example, if the grocery store is crowded, I would not go in the 15 or fewer line if I had 16 items. Every time I see someone with a full basket using that line, I find myself counting the objects. I just can’t conceive of how someone could blatantly disregard a plainly posted rule which would directly affect others. Just the way I’m wired.
Sometimes I wonder whether I ought to spend the time learning what the rules are. In some situations, I wonder if it is better not to know the rule, act in a manner I feel responsible, and then plead ignorance if I get called on it. Is that different/better/worse than ascertaining the rule, and then deciding not to follow it?