Revisiting this (originally 2009) text in 2023, I find the terminology a little vague and the scope unclear. For clarity: This text deals predominantly with rules in a more “how to best” sense than a “rules of the game” sense. Contrast e.g. a recipe in a cookbook with the rules of poker. (However, drawing a sharp border between “how to best” and “rules of the game” is not possible, and parts of the below might well apply to many cases of “rules of the game”.)
Further, I suspect that I, at the time of original writing, had not sufficiently considered the need to treat different types of rules differently. (And I was likely driven specifically by what I had seen in the world of software development, e.g. various style-guides, best practices, books by experts or “experts”—and how many colleagues either ignored any and all rules or took a religious approach to some specific book or whatnot.)
A separate 2023 text on categories of laws ([1]) has some further thoughts on the breaking of laws and, to a lesser degree, “rules of the game” (of which laws are a very important special case). In 2012, I added a section on laws below too, which unfortunately went unpublished and was only rediscovered after I published (the independently written) [1]. I have belatedly published that section, as it gives a reasonable and concise overview; however, [1] is likely to be more informative and gives a more up-to-date version of my views. (And [1] is certainly more relevant to those interested in the categorization aspect.)
Rules can, and sometimes should, be broken; however, it is important that they are broken from a position of thorough knowledge and understanding, and with awareness of both the positive and negative consequences. A rule, in its core, is a guideline (ideally) based on thinking, experience, trial-and-error, ...—sometimes created by those who know what they are doing; sometimes, regrettably, by those who do not. The point can come when someone has a deeper understanding of the matter at hand than is embodied in the rule. If this is the case, that someone might, depending on circumstances, be justified in setting the rule aside. (Note that this is very different from a thinking along the lines of “I am superior to the rest of the world; ergo, the rules do not apply to me.”.)
The problem is that most rules breakers do not bother to gain the level of understanding that is needed, but break the rules from a point of ignorance, where the wisdom embodied in the rules exceeds that of the breaker. A particular danger is that the ignorant often point to legitimate breakers, argue that if X can break the rule, then the rules are just a hindrance, and that they are not only justified but positively virtuous in breaking the rules.
Note that this applies to more or less all fields (not just laws and ethical principles), including arts, crafts, science, ...
As to when a sufficient competence level is reached: This will depend on the individual. Someone with just average intelligence might never reach this level; someone of unusually high intelligence and with a multitude of experience in other fields might do so in a comparatively short time. Further, there will be obvious dependencies on how hard the field is and what level of competence the rule-makers had. At any rate, it is usually better to err on the side of caution.
Apart from breaking rules outright, there is another option: To suggest changes to the rules.
This can be done from almost any level of experience, and will serve to either improve the rules or make their theoretical foundation more solid—provided that the rule-makers are sufficiently rational and open-minded to re-evaluate the rules in an objective manner, and have the competence and intelligence to do a good job. Unfortunately, this will often not be the case, and the suggester might make himself unpopular. (The same complication applies to breaking rules: Even a justified rule-breaking can lead to problems if others do not have the insight to see the justification. Typically, the semi-intelligent used to setting rules for the un-intelligent will react very negatively when someone intelligent enters the picture and dares to propose alternatives and changes.)
Notably, even rules made by the highly competent might be in need of improvement, e.g. because a general rule leads to negative effects for a rare or new special case.
An error many rule-makers do is to not provide a rationale for the rule. As can be seen from the above, a rationale brings many advantages, e.g. that someone considering breaking a rule can better judge the rule’s original justification, that someone with a suggestion for changes (and the rule-maker) can be saved unnecessary work over something that has already been considered, and that re-evaluation of rules is easier. A bonus is that a rationale can force the rule-maker to think the situation through in a more thorough manner.
An important caveat to the above is that those who stubbornly adhere to rules that they do not understand, or apply rules to a situation that they have not understood, can pose an even worse problem—as I begin to suspect after readings on http://www.fmylife.com, which contains many examples of this problem. Similarly, there are rules that are over-generalized and guidelines that are taken to an entirely undue extreme. (An excellent example is the common attitude of “Using the passive tense is a deadly sin.”, where “Overuse of the passive tense can lead to stiff texts.” is the true rule.) The simple truth is that below a certain level of competence there is no helping, and no amount of rules or discretion, explanation, time to master the field, whatnot, will make more than a marginal difference. (This problem is likely to be worsened by how many in authority positions enjoy their authority—especially, among small minds given a little authority in an otherwise bleak life.)
Fortunately for me, this problem long flew under my radar, because I have worked in environments with a strong pre-selection for higher intelligence and education—even the typical E4 employee had a college diploma and an IQ > 100.
The area of laws is especially tricky: On the one hand, the consequences of breaking a law can be very dire; on the other, very many laws are very far from being rational, just, whatnot. Indeed, politicians tend to be incompetent, driven by a wish for more votes, and strongly influenced by lobby-groups; further, many of their decisions are self-serving or serve to strengthen the power of the government; further yet, the reasoning behind many of their suggestions and votes can only be seen as reasonable if a certain ideological framework is given precedence.
Being (il)legal and being right (wrong) are two very different things; and, in principle, a recommendation to ignore any wrongful laws would be in order. Indeed, even in practice, I advice to not blindly follow laws, but to carefully consider doing what is actually right instead.
Here, however, greater care must be taken than for other types of rules. Apart from the risk of punishment, consider that:
Breaking laws can lead to an “uneven playing field”, where those who adhere to the laws have an unfair disadvantage in life. (Compare with sports and unpunished rule infringements.)
Laws have the advantage of giving some amount of consistency and predictability. If law breaking is common, the greater uncertainties of life could do more harm than the rule breaking does good. Consider how driving would change if half the population ignored red lights as a matter of course.
There are so many perspectives on right and wrong, so many different priorities, whatnot, that the risk of a misjudgment, let alone a judgment not shared by others, is higher than in most other situations.
The potential consequences of (even an informed and intelligent) law breaker becoming an example to others are worse than in almost any other situation.
The following is an automatically generated list of other pages linking to this one. These may or may not contain further content relevant to this topic.