16
   

Are rules meant to be broken?

 
 
mister kitten
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Jul, 2010 12:49 pm
@ebrown p,
It's pretty easy to find such an example.
Look in the 19th century in the southern U.S....helping a runaway slave was against the law, but if one turned a slave in s/he would be made a slave again, whipped, and/or killed. Breaking the law, in that case, would be very morally correct.
0 Replies
 
irina321
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Jul, 2010 06:37 pm
The reality of it all is that rules are simply constructed by humans. Which in essence doesn't make them forever in set in stone. Not to mention that not everyone will agree upon which rules are truly "rules" in the first place!

These "rules" are established, simply functioning as the oil for the mechanics of our lives so that our own, individual lives can flow with everyone else's. Clearly, if we didn't have rules than we wouldn't have any order. Human beings commonly like to fall of the beaten path and go against the grain.

But naturally, regardless of the situation.. there are always some sort of "rules" in society and something about human nature causes us to break them. Whether it's because we simply are idiots, because we get a high from it or because we don't view them as rules at all, we break them. In fact, for some of us, this rule breaking can become a lifestyle. As for learning a lesson from breaking them, well that all depends on how we view the situation. If we believe them to be rules and are breaking them, than we will feel some sort of repression from it. Otherwise, viewe in a dfferent way, the situation wouldn't be of concern to us but rather yet another one of life's paradoxes.

kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Jul, 2010 10:51 pm
@irina321,
irina321 wrote:

The reality of it all is that rules are simply constructed by humans. Which in essence doesn't make them forever in set in stone. Not to mention that not everyone will agree upon which rules are truly "rules" in the first place!

These "rules" are established, simply functioning as the oil for the mechanics of our lives so that our own, individual lives can flow with everyone else's. Clearly, if we didn't have rules than we wouldn't have any order. Human beings commonly like to fall of the beaten path and go against the grain.

But naturally, regardless of the situation.. there are always some sort of "rules" in society and something about human nature causes us to break them. Whether it's because we simply are idiots, because we get a high from it or because we don't view them as rules at all, we break them. In fact, for some of us, this rule breaking can become a lifestyle. As for learning a lesson from breaking them, well that all depends on how we view the situation. If we believe them to be rules and are breaking them, than we will feel some sort of repression from it. Otherwise, viewe in a dfferent way, the situation wouldn't be of concern to us but rather yet another one of life's paradoxes.




Of course rules are made. Who thinks they are discovered. And if something is a rule it can be violated. That is part of what it is to be a rule. Take the rules of chess, for instance, or any game. A game consists of rules, and if, for instance, someone moves a knight incorrectly, he has violated the rule for moving the knight. But that does not mean that rules are made to be broken. Why would anyone make a rule intending for it to be broken (which is what that means)? But, of course, rules can be broken, because rules can be followed, and if they can be followed, then they can be broken.
0 Replies
 
kennethamy
 
  2  
Reply Tue 20 Jul, 2010 11:22 pm
Just to some up what I just posted, to make what I said clearer:

The OP question is ambiguous: it could be understood to mean, "Are rules made so that they can be broken (that is, intended to be broken when they are made)? And the answer to that is, of course not. Why would rules be made just so they could be broken? On the other hand, the question might mean, is it in the nature of rules (is it part of what it is for something to be a rule) that it can be broken? And the answer to that is yes, of course. For something to be a rule means that it can either be followed or it can be violated (broken). So, since the question can mean one of two things, there are two answers, depending on what the question asks. So, in fact, there is not just one question. There are two questions packed into one sentence-question, and the answer to one question is, no, and the answer to the other question is, yes. As in so many cases in philosophy, the answer to the question becomes obvious once the question is clarified.














irina321
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Jul, 2010 01:59 pm
@kennethamy,
Haha well said! I love it and I couldn't agree with you more Smile
0 Replies
 
Khethil
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Jul, 2010 02:10 pm
@anonymous6059,
anonymous6059 wrote:
Is it our nature to conform or is it something we are taught in order for society to function.

Both, as I understand it; but that conformity isn't absolute or infallible. As I understand the concept, conformity is mainly a taught/learned activity but that it is a behavioral likelihood for the human being depending on the situation and amount of motivated self-interest.

anonymous6059 wrote:
Lastly, if morals are something learned then breaking the rules is needed, correct. How else can one learn what the rules are unless they have been pushed.

I don't think its true that we need to break rules to learn them. I've never purposefully plowed into a crowded group of bystanders with my car; that's not a rule I needed to break to know (sorry for the extreme example - its only for illustration).

But I'd admit that the reasons for some rules simply can't be "appreciated" until the doer breaks them (mostly having to do with self-protection). My feeling is that this is more of the exception, that we can and do follow rules without having to break them first.

anonymous6059 wrote:
What do you think, should the rules be broken?

Yea, sometimes. Though as soon as someone decides to do so, they place themselves in jeopardy; whether it be from the law, retribution, harm or whatever the motivation for that rule was.

Never a simple answer; always so many shades of gray.
0 Replies
 
HexHammer
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Jul, 2010 02:17 pm
@anonymous6059,
anonymous6059 wrote:

The Ideas I will present here is not my own, however, I have no reference to whom they belong.

Is it our nature to conform or is it something we are taught in order for society to function. If the prior, then that would explain why the milligram experiments had such horrific results. However, could deviation be our nature, testing the waters of our society until we learn what is right and wrong. This would explain why children have to be told no you can't steal that candy bar, but it must be paid for.

Lastly, if morals are something learned then breaking the rules is needed, correct. How else can one learn what the rules are unless they have been pushed. It is funny how the outcome of a war can decide how history books title a individual terrorist or freedom warrior.

What do you think, should the rules be broken?
So you are suggesting that we should unleash anarchy just for the sake of some dense people to learn selfexplanatory and simple things, for thousands of years reasonable intelligent people has been able to learn things just by being told or reading rules, morals and ethics.

I'm quite baffled how you can disregard simple history and be so blind to your surroundings and life.
0 Replies
 
kennethamy
 
  2  
Reply Wed 21 Jul, 2010 03:43 pm
Why would anyone think that rules should be broken regardless of what the rules are? Let alone that if rules are generally broken, then what is rule-governed cannot exist. Take the game of chess, for instance, if the rules of chess are broken by all chess players, then no one could play chess. If the rules of driving were generally broken then driving would come to a halt. No one could drive. So, it is simply self-defeating to advocate general rule breaking. In fact, people can break rules only because other people, the majority adhere to the rules; only because most people who play chess follow the rules can people break the rules since if most people did not follow the rules, there would be no chess to break the rules of. So people who advocate breaking the rules are a kind of parasite, since they can advocate what they advocate only because others do not do what they advocate. People who break the rules live on those who follow the rules, since unless people followed the rules there would be no rules to break.
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Jul, 2010 06:46 pm
@kennethamy,
Quote:
If the rules of driving were generally broken then driving would come to a halt. No one could drive.


This one certainly isn't true (at least not around here). People who follow the speed limit are hated because they slow the rest of us down.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Jul, 2010 07:06 pm
@anonymous6059,
Rules are meant to be broken only if they are "bad" (not working) rules...although, of course, rules are meant to be known, and subsequently, they must be pushed only to conclude if they are any rules at all...

...Go on...push against gravity !
A Human rule should be no different, but that is an entirely different matter, is n´t it ?...
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Jul, 2010 07:09 pm
@ebrown p,
...are n´t you going around the subject a little bit? Very Happy
0 Replies
 
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jul, 2010 12:23 pm
@ebrown p,
ebrown p wrote:

Quote:
If the rules of driving were generally broken then driving would come to a halt. No one could drive.


This one certainly isn't true (at least not around here). People who follow the speed limit are hated because they slow the rest of us down.



But what if everyone violated the rules, would you be able to drive (I mean, and be fairly sure you would get where you are going). What, for instance, if no one obeyed the traffic lights so you could simply go as you pleased?
0 Replies
 
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jul, 2010 12:27 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Rules are meant to be broken only if they are "bad" (not working) rules...although, of course, rules are meant to be known, and subsequently, they must be pushed only to conclude if they are any rules at all...

...Go on...push against gravity !
A Human rule should be no different, but that is an entirely different matter, is n´t it ?...


There are only rules made by people. The law of gravity is not a rule. It is a description of how objects behave. There is no rule of gravity. And nothing can violate the law of gravity or disobey it. Birds do not disobey the law of gravity. In fact, birds could not fly except for the law of gravity. The same goes for planes.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 02/28/2021 at 07:57:11