Friday, August 25, 2006

rules and obedience

Note the new quote in "Words I Like" by Beppe Severgnini...

This struck me so because I've been having a running conversation with a friend of mine about my strict adherence to the rules. Superficially, she is the one who adheres strictly to order, rules, schedules, and other similar structures. I'm the one who flits about like a fairy, changing my mind at a whim and always trying to keep my surroundings and schedule flexible. That said, I come from a lightly regimented background in which there were few rules, but those which existed were STONE SOLID. So, in spite of my wayward appearance, I have a deeply-rooted appreciation for a few good rules. I also hold that people are always more important than principles, and if doing the "right" thing hurts people, then a more flexible definition of "right" and "wrong" is in order. Yes, these two views occasionally come in conflict with each other. When in conflict, however, I put people before principles, and that usually resolves the problem. The only time I've seen that philosophy challenged was a case in which untreated mental illnes/addiction were involved. In that case, although I didn't seem to be valuing the (other) person over the principles, I had to choose between myself and another person and self-preservation won the day.

So, when I see a valuable outcome to following the rules in strict fashion, I do it. I base my decision on an evaluation of the situation in the moment, bearing in mind the long-term good. This includes stuff like: taking all of my antibiotics on schedule even if they upset my stomach, wearing all my safety gear on the bike even when it makes me sweat like a horse (a horse? of course! pigs don't sweat!), and using my turn signals in traffic. Of course, if I see no short- or long-term good to come of following a particular "rule" then I'm happy to disregard it.

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

Okay, I get it. You're really flexible...except when you're not. Now, how do these rules translate to your not responding when I had already broken the rules? So, if one of your friends had a curfew of midnight, would you refuse to hang out with them after that even if you didn't have a curfew and they were going to be out late whether you were there or not? Just askin'...

Thalassa said...

you had already broken the rules, but i had not. as your mom would gladly tell you, two wrongs don't make a right, so my adhering to the rules was a way of pushing you back onto the path of righteousness. *smirk* this is not at all analogous to you having a curfew and me not having one. a better analogy would be that we both had a curfew, you snuck out and came to throw rocks at my window. i knew it was you, and didn't come out to play. if you're going to be breaking the rules, you're going to have to do it alone.

that said, if you were breaking your curfew and i didn't have one, i'd probably not hang out with you. it would depend on what was at stake. if your authority figures were the type to ground you for breaking curfew so that i wouldn't get to hang out with you for a couple of weeks, that would probably not be worth it to me. if, on the other hand, the consequences for breaking curfew didn't hurt me and you didn't expect me to lie to keep you out of trouble, then i'd hang out with you. how's that for a complicated answer?

Anonymous said...

I expect nothing less than complicated answers from you. I can't say for sure, but I'd probably be a little disappointed if you ever gave just a simple response.