Respecting Precepts
Why I like Rules
Rules.
It is a word which evokes ‘emotions’ of disgust at worst and indifference at best in most of us. They are, after all, redundant chains of tradition and authority setting limits on how we think, speak and act. Crusaders of the ‘universal movement against Rules’ include lousy teenagers in high school classrooms and the giants of the literary world like the Bard of Avon. They pose a very simple and innocuous question to society : Where do you derive authority to dictate the terms of our lives and why should we be legitimately expected to obey your diktat ?
Well, this post does not answer this question, that is something we leave for another time. I am writing today to express my love for Rules and try, as I write along, to understand the reasons behind it. A note of caution for my regular readers before we begin : this post may seem to contradict a lot of things I have said before but it’s your job to see how it all fits into one complex human being, that we all are.
I do not know when and how my urge to conform to Rules began. Perhaps, it was due to the stories of honesty every child listens to when young. What I do know is that this ‘urge’ has only increased in its intensity, especially because as I grew older, there came more and more situations when it was tested and numerous well-intentioned people advised me to give it up.
When I talk about Rules today, I am not really referring to irrational and parochial limitations imposed on individuals by society. For instance, practices like Sati or instructions telling a woman not to venture out of her home might also be called rules. I am referring to Rules which are broadly accepted as legitimate by the society as a whole, are enforced by an authority which men have created for a peaceful order of things and are grounded in reason. These could be laws enacted by the State or instructions given by a teacher in the classroom.
Now, as I write this, I do feel that the argument I am making (if any) is not particularly convincing. I could easily turn around and say that even these ‘legitimate Rules’ are not always completely rational and that the distinction I make between societal limitations and the State’s laws is an arbitrary one. Moreover, people who break such Rules may do so because they find them devoid of logic. Take for example - a person who does not pay full taxes because he thinks that the tax rates are unjust, disproportionate and unreasonable. Consider another case - a student who cheats on an exam because he thinks that the exams are not a good test of his abilities and merely need to be passed.
I have been analysing this line of thought a little and this is where I have reached - Conforming to Rules does not imply obeying authority per se, rather it is grounded in a broader and more universal Rule of Honesty. What I mean by this is that if the student can openly profess to the teacher-in-charge that he is cheating because he finds the Rule unfair or if the taxpayer can tell the relevant authority that he is not going to pay all the taxes due to some reason, I would perhaps not have an objection to that.
In the beginning, I remarked that some of this may contradict my earlier opinions - for example, my view that protests, even if containing elements of technical illegality, are legitimate. However, if looked at through the prism of the ‘Rule of Honesty’ - this apparent paradox can be resolved. So, when I say that cheating is immoral or violating a law duly enforced is illegal, I am essentially referring to an act which is carried out in secrecy, with an aim to bypass the law by deceiving the authority or expecting to benefit oneself without being caught. I find this Rule especially appealing because whenever I have faced a personal moral dilemma, I have often found myself asking - “Would I do this openly ?”
This Rule ensures that while acts like tax-evasion are wrong, a protest against indiscriminate taxation involving elements of civil disobedience is morally sound. I do wish to acknowledge here that sometimes, this may not be easy. Breaking an unfair Rule is simpler than building a movement against it. To this, I have two responses - if the Rule is a societal limitation as discussed above, in the nature of the ‘rule’ of untouchability for example, it is all right to violate it since it has no moral or legal authority. For Rules enforced by the State, violating them in secrecy disturbs the very foundations of the notion of a ‘State’ and the ‘rule of law’ and therefore, may not be the best way forward. Lastly, given a choice between the ‘easy thing’ and the ‘right thing’, I would place my bets on the latter.
The Rule of Honesty, I think finds its expression in Immanuel Kant’s political philosophy of the categorical imperative. While learning about this notion as part of a course I undertook last year, I noticed striking similarities between my personal moral philosophy and the theory of the categorical imperative. Kant talks about certain ‘duties’ which Man must follow, not because of any divine morality, but owing to pure reason and rationality. Every person, for instance, would like to live in a world where he is told the truth and not lied to. Thus, honesty is one of the basic duties, a fundamental imperative that Man must follow, to live in an orderly world.
Having said that, there exist Rules of another kind : rules of grammar, poetic exactitude, scientific vigour etc. These Rules are neither enforced by a society nor by the State - they are Rules of tradition. Some people feel that these Rules stifle creativity and individualistic expression. I do not subscribe to the view completely. In my opinion, these Rules find their basis in extensive work in and a deep understanding of the respective discipline. Good grammar for example, is necessary for readers to comprehend a piece of writing. However, I also believe that there is ample scope for artists to come up with new ideas and styles which may not necessarily operate within these Rule frameworks. Hence, I agree with the view that ‘you must know the Rules first to break them.’ Writers, for instance, often use what is known as ‘poetic license’ to play with the Rules of grammar in an effort to express themselves better. Similarly, people like Shakespeare and the Romantics violated the Rules operating in the literary world to evolve new styles. But it is important to note that these people also had a grasp of what the Rules meant and why before pointing out their pitfalls.
To sum things up : I do not contend that my commitment to Rules is based on pure rationality but I do find the principle underlying it to be a sturdy anchor - a compass in times of crisis, an ideal which merits pursuit and a value worth sacrifice.
this habit of yours is a big factor for your success! keep hustling! 💖