Rules oriented

[Miker]

That's how I became a really good underwriter. To learn the rules implicitly first before deciding when and how they should be broken- or bent. Meanwhile I recall two people in my department who simply looked at everything in black and white terms, never considering breaking or bending the rules. Looking back, one of them was likely on the spectrum, while the other decidedly NT.

I see everything in black and white and struggle to even approach breaking rules. For my entrepreneur boss every rule is there to be broken!

 

[Judge]

I see everything in black and white and struggle to even approach breaking rules. For my entrepreneur boss every rule is there to be broken!

I'm inclined to think that for many of us it's a struggle to break out of that mentality. One thing that aids me in this struggle is that (like Temple Grandin) I don't have an ideological mindset. I don't view things etched in stone because such much of life is dynamic whether we like it or not. Yet I still loathe change...but I can't ignore it either.

 

[marcadam]

I too loath change and I think rules are great, they bring order to the world. I really struggle when people, particularly those in authority, don't apply them equally.

 

[Miker]

I'm inclined to think that for many of us it's a struggle to break out of that mentality. One thing that aids me in this struggle is that (like Temple Grandin) I don't have an ideological mindset. I don't view things etched in stone because such much of life is dynamic whether we like it or not. Yet I still loathe change...but I can't ignore it either.

Would it be fair to say that rules by their very nature need to be black and white otherwise they become guidelines with wriggle room for subjectivity. Human beings of all types are on a spectrum meaning they view things differently. If someone can choose to abide by a law or rule or not then the law or rule is meaningless.
Due to speeding along a road outside my house I gathered statistic info to put towards a petition. I found that 50% of cars were travelling more than 110% of the limit. Not a few but half. Therefore my objective view is that half the measured drivers care not about rules or laws!

 

[Judge]

Would it be fair to say that rules by their very nature need to be black and white otherwise they become guidelines with wriggle room for subjectivity.

Excellent question. Here's my answer: An emphatic "no".

Otherwise every defendant at Nuremberg in 1946 would have been set free because "they were only following orders".

The notion that "rules are rules" doesn't change the possibility that some rules are incredibly bad ones which shouldn't have been "rules" in the first place.

 

[Ste11aeres]

What if in speeding to try and save one person you cause a mass pileup and there are multiple fatalities? Rules might be defined by risk analysis, something that a subjective judgement might not take into account!

Well, yes, there does have to be risk analysis. But risk analysis can exist also on an individual level. (Of course, people do sometimes mess that part of it up. But some people get it right).

 

[Miker]

Excellent question. Here's my answer: An emphatic "no".

Otherwise every defendant at Nuremberg in 1946 would have been set free because "they were only following orders".

The notion that "rules are rules" doesn't change the possibility that some rules are incredibly bad ones which shouldn't have been "rules" in the first place.

That was a thought provoking response that I am struggling to have a response for. I would guess that military environments are different to civilian environments and that fear will affect people's decision making in different ways. Rules of war are different from laws of the land. Laws are there to allow groups of people to live together and rules of war are to win battles at all costs and the ethics of the two situations are not similar. In one situations ethics are used guide your judgement and in the other they are not.
In the area of societies laws, to drive at 40 mph in a 40mph zone is the law of the land, if someone thinks that is too slow then they are taking a subjective view rather than an objective view that the state says 40mph and no more under any circumstances, even for the guy who had just bought a superbike that can do 150mph.
PS although speeding really winds me up, I could apply to to other laws such as noise laws etc etc.

 

[Miker]

Well, yes, there does have to be risk analysis. But risk analysis can exist also on an individual level. (Of course, people do sometimes mess that part of it up. But some people get it right).

I think that I have heard a quote along the lines of "nobody is above the law"

 

[Judge]

I think that I have heard a quote along the lines of "nobody is above the law"

Point taken. That's when more often than not a citizen must depend on the professional discretion of a police officer. Where their judgment ultimately prevails for better or worse. And like everyone else, some officers use great discretion, while others do not.

 

[Miker]

Point taken. That's when more often than not a citizen must depend on the professional discretion of a police officer. Where their judgment ultimately prevails for better or worse. And like everyone else, some officers use great discretion, while others do not.

Unfortunately in the UK police budgets are being cut therefore less police enforcement!

 

[Ste11aeres]

I think that I have heard a quote along the lines of "nobody is above the law"

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying anyone should go along breaking rules just willy nilly. But there can conceivably be situations in which you could or even should do so. As an extreme example: suppose a nation decides to enact ethnic "cleansing" and murder all persons of a certain race/ethnicity. Anyone who "harbors" such a person is breaking the law. If you provide shelter to someone who's a member of that persecuted group, and hide them from searching police officers, you are breaking the law, but you are also acting morally.
Obviously, the odds are against any of us ever being in that kind of extreme situation. But it is theoretically possible.

Don't get me wrong. In almost all cases, I do advocate following laws and rules. And it could be said that even in a situation like that described above, the only reason you are breaking a legal rule is because you are following a more important moral rule.

 

[Miker]

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying anyone should go along breaking rules just willy nilly. But there can conceivably be situations in which you could or even should do so. As an extreme example: suppose a nation decides to enact ethnic "cleansing" and murder all persons of a certain race/ethnicity. Anyone who "harbors" such a person is breaking the law. If you provide shelter to someone who's a member of that persecuted group, and hide them from searching police officers, you are breaking the law, but you are also acting morally.
Obviously, the odds are against any of us ever being in that kind of extreme situation. But it is theoretically possible.

Don't get me wrong. In almost all cases, I do advocate following laws and rules. And it could be said that even in a situation like that described above, the only reason you are breaking a legal rule is because you are following a more important moral rule.

I agree with your point. On that basis I would say that societies laws under normal circumstances are morally acceptable to that society. Some people may for instance not like paying tax but they recognise that it may benefit society as a whole and as long as it is not an excessive amount then it is the right thing to do. Ethnic cleansing on the other hand you would think is morally unacceptable to everyone, however it does go on so I guess there are people who turn the other cheek for whatever reason, probably fear.
My record keeping of 500 cars would indicate though that 250 people for whatever reason have taken a decision that the rule that is there for everyone does not apply to them. That is a subjective judgement which undermines an ethical law that is there for everyone's safety. As an Aspie I feel more angered by those decisions and wonder what other laws are being overlooked. I think that a cohesive society can only exist if moral laws are upheld to the letter, black and white

 

[Datura]

Suppose you are out late at night and in a rush to catch the last bus home. You come to an intersection and the light is red. You look and notice that there is absolutely no vehicular trafic for at least two blocks in any direction. To cross the street while the light is red would be illegal, but abiding by the law might mean you miss your train. Which decision is correct?

 

[Miker]

Suppose you are out late at night and in a rush to catch the last bus home. You come to an intersection and the light is red. You look and notice that there is absolutely no vehicular trafic for at least two blocks in any direction. To cross the street while the light is red would be illegal, but abiding by the law might mean you miss your train. Which decision is correct?

I would say 2 things. First the law is unworkable and pressure should be exerted to get it modified. Secondly the reason that you may miss your train is due to poor organisation and timekeeping not the law.

The vast majority of car drivers speeding occur in the Rush hours. They are rushing because they are late. They are late because they left late not because of the speed limit! If they left early they wouldn't need to break the speed limit.

Is your hypothetical to do with jaywalking? I don't understand that law being from Blighty. We can walk across the road when we want! You should campaign to get rid of jaywalking!

 

[Datura]

Yes, the hypothetical does pertain to jaywalking. In escence I am asking if laws should bee abided by even when the reason for the law is absent. Trafic laws serve the dual purpose of keeping people safe and maintaining flow. In this case there is no traffic to be disrupted, nor is there a threat of anybody getting struck by a vehicle. So seeing as the law serves absolutely no purpose in this context should it still be observed?

The detail about being late for a train was actually superfulous. I merely added it to add a sense of urgency to situation. Now I see it is destracting from the point I am trying to make.

As for your example of speeding Miker, I am in total agreement that people are wrong to be speeding. It frustrates me to no end when I am on the road, doing the speed limit, and everyone is passing me by.

 

[Crossbreed]

There are:

1. RULES,
2. rULES,
3. Rules and
4. rules.

#1 is the morally/ethically imperative. They have dire consequences, if ignored.
#3 is conventions. They can be different in different contexts, like language, traffic laws, measurement standards (such as standard vs. metric). They are not morally imperative; just meant to get people on the "same page."
#2 is like game rules. They are not morally imperative, either, but are meant to facilitate "fair play."
#4 is social habits. Violating these only offends those that are used to doing things a "certain" way.

In my own personal values, I am hard-line on #1. I expect both sides to be in agreement for #2. I acknowledge #3, but don't require it in closed systems. I have little respect for #4.

 

[Aspieistj]

I strongly believe that anyone in a position to make rules is bound by conscience to be fair and consistent. Rules must make sense and be fair. That being said, rules should be followed. I am furious if I play a game that has written rules and all the players don't follow those rules.

 

[Miker]

Yes, the hypothetical does pertain to jaywalking. In escence I am asking if laws should bee abided by even when the reason for the law is absent. Trafic laws serve the dual purpose of keeping people safe and maintaining flow. In this case there is no traffic to be disrupted, nor is there a threat of anybody getting struck by a vehicle. So seeing as the law serves absolutely no purpose in this context should it still be observed?

The detail about being late for a train was actually superfulous. I merely added it to add a sense of urgency to situation. Now I see it is destracting from the point I am trying to make.

As for your example of speeding Miker, I am in total agreement that people are wrong to be speeding. It frustrates me to no end when I am on the road, doing the speed limit, and everyone is passing me by.

Yes, I understood your reasoning, I was just on the way out to work so tried to get something written so that it didn't appear like I was ignoring your question. Yes you are correct that it makes no sense to stick to that law if no cars are around. So I would say that if your decision has no negative impact on someone else in not following the law then there is no harm. Maybe you have hit on the key element in all of this, that the decision making process should not negatively impact others. What do you think?

 

[Judge]

This thread sort of reminds me of an exercise I once had in a college course. One of those "oddball requirements" outside my major, but it had to be fulfilled. It was a criminal justice course in police/community relations.

The instructor was a former police chief. He posed this question: "What do you do if you see someone on the road driving erratically, only to stop them and determine it's the mayor's intoxicated wife?"

His answer upset a few of the students who I suppose anticipated a "black/white" approach to such an issue.

He recommended you discreetly escort her home to sleep it off. No arrest.

 

[Miker]

This thread sort of reminds me of an exercise I once had in a college course. One of those "oddball requirements" outside my major, but it had to be fulfilled. It was a criminal justice course in police/community relations.

The instructor was a former police chief. He posed this question: "What do you do if you see someone on the road driving erratically, only to stop them and determine it's the mayor's intoxicated wife?"

His answer upset a few of the students who I suppose anticipated a "black/white" approach to such an issue.

He recommended you discreetly escort her home to sleep it off. No arrest.

It seems to me that context has a big role in all of this, but to me that just adds complexity and confusion to a simple process. Make all laws reasonable but black and white, no leeway, just straight down the middle. Make everyone aware of this fact and punish deviation. Everyone knows where they stand and can't be surprised of a negative outcome. The law would be the same for the president/ prime minister to the down and out, no wriggle room, every one the same. This allows anyone on a spectrum to operate in the same fashion in any context. Simple