"Rules are rules"

Article updated on 08 June 2014

The problems with the "rules are rules" approach

As established in the post establishing the fundamentals of freedom and responsibility, we do need rules and regulations to help us to filter out irresponsible behaviour, and up to a point, we need to enforce them, using a combination of punishment (to give a deterrent) and rehabilitation (to reduce the incidence of re-offending).

Rules should reflect wider moral considerations and should be followed out of respect for those moral considerations, not purely because they exist.  But as a society, we often lose sight of this, and many people just accept that rules should be accepted and followed because "rules are rules"- there is no need for reasons and understanding, that's just the way it is, because some authority set up rules that say so.  This gives authorities a lot of excess power, where they can potentially set up wholly unreasonable rules and justify them on the basis, "Because we said so."

Dangers of accepting that "rules are justified because rules are rules"

When we accept that rules should be followed because "rules are rules", we often end up justifying them using circular reasoning.  Many of us consider what is morally right and wrong to be defined by what the some authority's rules do and don't say, and since the rules are supposed to reflect what is morally right and wrong, we get an argument along the lines of, "X is wrong because it's against the rules, and it's against the rules because it's wrong".

Setting up unreasonably restrictive rules isn't the only way in which authorities can take advantage of the blind acceptance that "rules are always justified because rules are rules".  They can also be enforced disproportionately, and made unclear in the hope of catching out ordinarily law-abiding citizens.

Enforcement of conformity to traditional ways of doing and thinking

Individual authorities are not the only people who are capable of setting up and enforcing rules.  Social groups and societies set up social norms, traditions and etiquettes, dictating what range of behaviours are and aren't considered acceptable by the group, and these suffer from the same problem.  As long as these norms/traditions/etiquettes are based on wider moral considerations, and/or the group tolerates individuality and allows individuals to follow legitimate alternative ways of doing and thinking without being rejected, this isn't a problem.  

But all too often, groups set up rules along the lines of, "Do and think 'our' way, or be rejected", where social norms, traditions and etiquettes are justified purely on the basis, "Because we said so", and all those who deviate are rejected for being different, and the group sees it as like authorities punishing someone for stealing loaves of bread from a shop- rules are rules, no matter how good or bad they are.  This is a common cause of suppression of individuality and creative thought, and discrimination against vulnerable/minority groups.

Discretion vs. absolute enforcement

Many rules are reasonable for 90-95% of the time but can be daft if applied absolutely in the other 5-10% of situations, so we can enable authorities to apply discretion and refrain from enforcing the rules absolutely in the other 5-10% of cases.  The danger with this is that it means that the rules can be less clear, and if some people are allowed to get away with breaking rules in certain situations, then it can encourage others to try to push boundaries and see if they can similarly get away with it.  

But enforcing rules absolutely in all cases can backfire.  One example that I used to get into heated arguments about when I was younger is the road traffic law saying that responsibility for an accident should always lie with the driver of the vehicle behind, due to the need to keep a safe distance from the vehicle in front.  Yes, I'd say that this law is a reasonable generalisation that works in at least 90% of cases.  But when applied absolutely in all cases, it leads to some major problems when we get scammers pulling in front of motorists, slamming on the brakes and claiming on their insurance, trying to take advantage of the shortcomings of this law.  Thus, in this particular case it is desirable for authorities to apply some discretion.

I tend to think that we need a balance (as is so often the case).  Apply discretion sometimes, but make it clear what sort of situations the discretion does and doesn't apply to, so that the rules and their enforcement is still reasonably clear to the general population.

Civil disobedience is never ideal but is sometimes necessary

In an ideal world, rules would always reflect wider moral considerations, and people would always obey them, but we don't live in an ideal world and abuse of power and authority is widespread.  It is easy to say, "If you don't like an authority's rules, campaign for them to be changed", but in my experience, campaigning for them to be changed often isn't enough on its own.  A particularly common circular argument, for example, is, "X is illegal.  People shouldn't break the law.  Therefore people shouldn't do X.  And that's why X is illegal!"  Or, just the defence of the status quo - "It's right, because that's just the way it is."

So, sometimes, one of the most effective ways of getting unjust rules changed can be civil disobedience, taking the risk of being caught and punished, but at least taking a personal stand against them, and hoping that if enough people take part in the civil disobedience, authorities might take notice.  As I say, it's not ideal, because when we behave outside of the rules, often, we have little or nothing left to guide us regarding what is and isn't responsible behaviour, and we can end up inadvertently making serious errors.  But sometimes it can be necessary in order to prevent authorities from accumulating too much power.