The Rules and When to Break Them

The Rules When do we obey them? When do we break them? When do we change them?

In the place and time I grew up, this would not even be a question let alone a dilemma. Rules were rules. We all assumed they were designed deliberately, and for good reasons after thoughtful consideration and deliberation by fair-minded lawmakers. You obey them. It was just that simple.

But now it's not so simple anymore, is it? Now, after so many years of ingesting the cultural pollution that is television, movies and social media, people take pride in being the rebel. The rugged individualist. The breaker of rules. Oftentimes the heroes in our stories are criminals and rule breakers. I had a boss once who told me that I would not rise from Director level to VP level unless I learned to break the rules.

This may be the result of being in a country originally created by "criminals". Of course, we don't see them that way. To us, our founders were heroes that fought for independence from England and the monarchy.

But think about it from England's point of view. We were British citizens who didn't want to obey the laws. Or pay our taxes. So we armed ourselves, fought with our government, killed our British soldiers. We took the land that Britain had discovered, explored, fought for and won in battles, settled, developed into towns, built roads, railroads, bridges, ports, trade routes, etc. and we took it from them as our own.

If the citizens of a current state like Florida did that to us now, we would call them criminals and terrorists. It brings the inevitable question of "Is it wrong?" And "What makes it wrong or right?" And does the answer depend on which group you belong to? In the 1770's, if you were on the side of the British, then the Americans were lawless criminals. But if you were on the side of the Americans, then they were freedom fighters resisting the yoke of tyranny from the British Crown.

So it's not about "Right" or "Wrong" but merely about which side you're on, and whether you profit by it or not? That seems rather arbitrary.

Then there is the evolution of a culture. What one generation may abhor and condemn, the next generation might reluctantly allow under limited circumstances. Then what one generation barely allows, the next generation might openly embrace. Homosexuality, Marijuana use, non Christian religions like Paganism, etc. might be examples of these. So are the concepts of "Right" and "Wrong" merely a matter of timing then?

10 years ago, smoking Marijuana was illegal everywhere. Now it's legal in many states. But still illegal in others. So are "Right and Wrong" dependent on timing and location, by state jurisdiction?

When, and under what circumstances, do we decide to change a law? When it is deemed unjust? When it's old? When the people enforcing it are no longer in power? When too many people are already breaking it so it has become overcome by events? When the rule simply becomes unpopular to the majority of society?

Are "Right" and "Wrong" based merely on a popularity contest? Somehow, it seems like the rules we live by should be based on a more substantial moral and ethical footing.