Following rules: inherently a virtue?

[Timsup2nothin]

So this came up in another thread, where ongoing discussion of the subject would be out of place. The positions already presented:

Following the rules is an always virtue, while rulebreaking is a display of arrogance. If society as a whole has determined a proper stance, who are you to decide unilaterally in favor of some other behavior?

Following rules as created blindly can lead to moral conflicts, because society itself through either widespread ignorance or malicious failures in leadership often creates rules that are counterproductive if not outright dangerous.

 

[Lexicus]

The liberals and the Enlightenment got this one right. Individuals are capable of using reason to critique society's received wisdom and propose improvements. We are all better off because of this.

 

[rah]

When I play games, I do it for enjoyment so following the rules is important.
In life I usually follow the rules. When I have a moral conflict with them, I try to change the rules.
The times I don't follow the rules are usually when the rules aren't absolute (so the don't really exist)
Mainly climbing the corporate ladder. I always wondered if there were rules for that contest.
So sometimes, my family came first and I did a few things that I may look back on and not be proud of.
(but in all fairness, many unfair things happened to me along the way so you give what you get sometimes)

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I consider myself a rule follower. The law doesn't say that you can't rob banks, it says that if you do rob banks there is a risk of certain consequences. I accepted both the risks and the consequences, hence I am a more law abiding citizen than most.

 

[Lexicus]

I think we need to deconstruct "rules". "Law" is a specific case of "rules". I consider myself a "rule follower" in that I (try to) live by the rule of non-harm and non-manipulation of others, but I am not law-abiding.

 

[rah]

Only what binds us is important. If it doesn't, it really does not exist.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I think we need to deconstruct "rules". "Law" is a specific case of "rules". I consider myself a "rule follower" in that I (try to) live by the rule of non-harm and non-manipulation of others, but I am not law-abiding.

Aristotle: I have gained this from philosophy: that I do without being commanded what others do only from fear of the law.

Aristotle lived in simpler times, where the law actually reflected, for the most part, doing right.

 

[Narz]

Rules are for those too lazy to find ways around them.

 

[Lexicus]

Aristotle lived in simpler times, where the law actually reflected, for the most part, doing right.

Aristotle lived in a polis where people owned slaves and it was legal

 

[rah]

What if the slave were soldiers that came to conquer you and lost? Would that be morally wrong? Would it be better than just killing them?

 

[Lexicus]

What if the slave were soldiers that came to conquer you and lost? Would that be morally wrong? Would it be better than just killing them?

rah, you really need to ask yourself why your response to my post was to immediately attempt to justify slavery

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Aristotle lived in a polis where people owned slaves and it was legal

Slavery was deemed a better way to deal with conquered people than extermination. That particular law was in force for millennia, and was probably a net good.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

rah, you really need to ask yourself why your response to my post was to immediately attempt to justify slavery

It wasn't. It was an accurate reflection of the slavery that was practiced at the time. You really need to ask yourself how to eliminate the blind spot that tells you "all slavery is the same."

 

[rah]

rah, you really need to ask yourself why your response to my post was to immediately attempt to justify slavery

Why must you always assume I support something when I ask a simple question? Having a discussion on something doesn't not equate to support.

 

[Synobun]

Not sure how to interpret the framing of the question.

I follow rules if they pass the sniff test and if they're easy to follow. If I have to jump through hoops to abide by a decree, I'm less inclined to consider that decree valid. And rules are kind of bogus if they entail someone dying or having their life forever ruined if they follow them.

I don't think following rules is inherently a virtue, nor do I think breaking them is inherently arrogance. Motivation and context matters. Someone breaking rules simply because they don't care or want to cause harm/chaos is a bit of a knob. Someone breaking rules because their family is starving is valuable context. They still broke a rule, but a reason for breaking a rule can change the punishment (if one exists).

I do think if someone is capable they should critically think about the rules they live with. "It's a rule because it's a rule." isn't compelling for me, and I like knowing that the order of things has a reason for it and isn't just arbitrary or built off of some weird pro-suffering slant.

 

[Farm Boy]

Eh. I think it was probably entirely self-serving and served as an incentive to conquest. Man things to do stuff for you. Woman things for that and more. And when it was inconvenient or unwanted, I'd put heavy money that the extermination just sort of selectively happened whatever the law said.

Not all slavery was the same. But.

 

[EgonSpengler]

I do not think that following rules is a virtue. There are too many instances when rules are or have been unjust or harmful. Even when a rules-follower is behaving in a way that I would call just or ethical, they make me nervous if they're only doing it because they're following the rules. The implication there is that if the rules twist towards injustice or harm, then so would they. Their apparent benevolence could just be circumstantial, and not intrinsic.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

If forced to choose between the two, I select the latter. Blindly following rules can result in very undesirable outcomes. Rules should be designed to attain outcomes agreed on as preferable, and backed by some burden of evidence. Insofar as they work, following them is a virtue, but this virtue is not *inherent* to the presence of rules! (Even ignoring the notion of anything being "inherently virtuous" being questionable)

Of course, we can't even agree on what's preferable, and at some point you're stuck drawing a line on what degree of preference is "okay" to force on other people. I would prefer to err on the side of enforcing as few as possible, because I trust no human to be good at doing this in objective/fair fashion (including myself).

Similarly, it's better to have rules be as concrete as possible rather than vague, because the latter encourages uneven/unfair enforcement. But in practice you can't define every minute violation, so again one must choose some threshold for drawing the line. I again suggest erring on the side of caution when it comes to enforcement.

Broadly speaking we still do need rules. Not an easy balance to navigate.

Slavery was deemed a better way to deal with conquered people than extermination. That particular law was in force for millennia, and was probably a net good.

It was USUALLY deemed that way. There are some pretty notable exceptions, long before history saw proper abolishment come into play. Usually this was either to make a statement (Mongol behavior in Iran) or because it was for some reason impractical/dangerous to capture so many slaves.

Ransom money from captured enemies (especially nobles) was a big thing too for a bit.

 

[rah]

Yes Farm boy, what should I do to a man that comes to conquer me so he can take my daughter?

 

[Senethro]

Rule following without critique is just a fact for most of humanity. They absorb the local customs/laws just as we do language so its in everyones interest to collaboratively ensure the rules are good ones (functional, comprehensive, comprehensible, maintainable)