Living with or without rules?

[Lark]

Do you consciously choose to live with or without rules? Do you consider transgressing rules or living without or in defiance of rules to be legit philosophical questions?

I wondered about this watching a couple of movies this evening, The Dark Knight, in which the Joker wants to convince Batman that he has to transgress his rules and break them, even if he has only one (which I think was his unwillingness to kill) and, randomly, Dragon Ball Z: Evolution, in which no rules is considered/portrayed as a positive, self-belief appearing to trumph it. Pretty different takes I think you'll agree on the same idea.

 

[Amethyst]

I have 'guidelines' in my life. I don't like rules, but I also don't enjoy having control and structure over my life, which rules provide to an extent.

 

[Thalassa]

There must be rules.

Without rules there is chaos. The reason for this is that there are an unfortunate lot of people who can't even make a distinction between "good" and "bad" or "right" and "wrong" unless someone else sets a particular social structure for them to follow. Nihilists, existentialists, criminals, and even asshats who refuse to control their dogs and discipline their children fall into this unfortunate category.

I really hate that the U.S. is becoming more of an SP culture than an SJ culture. I find it embarrassing.

Now you know.

Despite the fact that I am apparently NFP, I have a rather J need of of order (and that's probably why I test INFJ on most Keirsey Temperament tests.)

 

[Randomnity]

I don't have rules for myself - what would be the point, when I made them up myself? If I trusted my judgement initially to make rules, shouldn't I keep trusting it? Plus, how could I make hard rules without knowing the details of future situations I may be in? That would be an uninformed decision, horribly unwise.

In society, of course there is the need for rules though - mostly to ensure that everyone is responsible for a basic standard of behaviour (like not going around raping and pillaging all the time) for the benefit of everyone else in society. Unfortunately, not everyone would follow these rules in the absence of societal guidelines/laws.

 

[FDG]

I don't have rules for myself - what would be the point, when I made them up myself? If I trusted my judgement initially to make rules, shouldn't I keep trusting it? Plus, how could I make hard rules without knowing the details of future situations I may be in? That would be an uninformed decision, horribly unwise.

In society, of course there is the need for rules though - mostly to ensure that everyone is responsible for a basic standard of behaviour (like not going around raping and pillaging all the time) for the benefit of everyone else in society. Unfortunately, not everyone would follow these rules in the absence of societal guidelines/laws.

Same.

 

[Totenkindly]

I don't have rules for myself - what would be the point, when I made them up myself? If I trusted my judgement initially to make rules, shouldn't I keep trusting it? Plus, how could I make hard rules without knowing the details of future situations I may be in? That would be an uninformed decision, horribly unwise.

In society, of course there is the need for rules though - mostly to ensure that everyone is responsible for a basic standard of behaviour (like not going around raping and pillaging all the time) for the benefit of everyone else in society. Unfortunately, not everyone would follow these rules in the absence of societal guidelines/laws.

Nice post. I agree, in terms of my individual approach to things.

I think the only place where I impose my rules on myself are with areas involving self-discipline... such as eating more than I should, etc. There, I try to establish the pattern ahead of time ("you can have two cookies today, altogether"), so that in the heat of the moment I have something to recall to help keep me on track and help me choose the best time to indulge. Otherwise sometimes I can be too flexible and always find a reason to "change the rule."

 

[Moiety]

If I didn't have rules for myself, the value of taking course of action A versus taking course of action B in any given situation, would be truly subjective and I'd be like driftwood....doing whatever pleased me without any notion of the implications of my actions for myself and others.

So yes, I do have rules for myself. And I think any wise person should.

"Do not kill" is a rule for example. One most could agree is an example of a good limitation.

 

[Qlip]

^^^ I have guidelines, tendencies, rules, they are all pretty plastic. There are things that I don't do and do that are within my nature, and I occasionally have to conciously work around them or overrun them. I suppose I have one rule I try not to break: try to do good things. Otherwise it seems to me that strong sets of situational rules are unrealistic in rl.

Even concerning laws, which need be enforced consistently to maintain order,mercy and situational conditions should be always considered.

 

[Such Irony]

There must be rules.

Without rules there is chaos. The reason for this is that there are an unfortunate lot of people who can't even make a distinction between "good" and "bad" or "right" and "wrong" unless someone else sets a particular social structure for them to follow. Nihilists, existentialists, criminals, and even asshats who refuse to control their dogs and discipline their children fall into this unfortunate category.

I really hate that the U.S. is becoming more of an SP culture than an SJ culture. I find it embarrassing.

Now you know.

Despite the fact that I am apparently NFP, I have a rather J need of of order (and that's probably why I test INFJ on most Keirsey Temperament tests.)

Wanting to have order doesn't make you a J. Everyone uses both J and P. Of course some order and rules is necessary. Otherwise there's anarchy.

Nice post. I agree, in terms of my individual approach to things.

I think the only place where I impose my rules on myself are with areas involving self-discipline... such as eating more than I should, etc. There, I try to establish the pattern ahead of time ("you can have two cookies today, altogether"), so that in the heat of the moment I have something to recall to help keep me on track and help me choose the best time to indulge. Otherwise sometimes I can be too flexible and always find a reason to "change the rule."

I agree with this.

 

[Moiety]

^^^ I have guidelines, tendencies, rules, they are all pretty plastic. There are things that I don't do and do that are within my nature, and I occasionally have to conciously work around them or overrun them. I suppose I have one rule I try not to break: try to do good things. Otherwise it seems to me that strong sets of situational rules are unrealistic in rl.

Even concerning laws, which need be enforced consistently to maintain order,mercy and situational conditions should be always considered.

Considered yes. A strong set of situational rules is usually unproductive (I don't like the term unrealistic. A person with enough will power can do a lot), but a strong set of more general rules is, in my opinion, paramount. And foresight is something worth training.

 

[Saslou]

I understand the need for rules in society but they can potentially constrain us .. I respect the people to dare to step outside the box even if they are viewed upon as rebel rouses, anarchists etc .. I think ultimately you can make a point but you have to do it in such a way (thinking V for Vendetta).

 

[Savage Idealist]

Aside from my own internal network of ethics, I don't appraciate or really care for the external rules of society. In fact, I often loathe the external rules of society, especially if the rules seem unfair to me or are followed far too strictly. But don't get the wrong idea, I'm not some chaotic/violent person because i don't follow societies set of rules, Its just that because of my highly ethical and kind nature that I beleive I really don't need to conform to any external set of rules.

 

[IZthe411]

I'm a principles based person. Rules change, principles don't. If you understand the underlying principles of the rules, it makes the rules easier to understand, and in some cases helps you see where you can ease up on following the rule itself.

 

[nolla]

Do you consciously choose to live with or without rules? Do you consider transgressing rules or living without or in defiance of rules to be legit philosophical questions?

I don't have definite rules, because there are too many variables in the situation I should apply these rules in. I also believe that making rules limits the way you think and makes you more black-and-white. It seems to work like this always, so I try to keep my flexibility by not having anything set in stone. I do have guidelines and strong "preferences", I even think I am ethical, but I try to always keep in mind that there are no absolutes.

 

[murkrow]

Rules are for games, they should only be followed when you've got the goal of succeeding in the framework they create.

So, if you want to play Hockey you've got to follow the rules (to an extent) or you'll be kicked off the ice.

If you want to be a lawyer you've got to follow them or you'll be kicked out of the courtroom.

If you want to live your life the only rule you have to follow is "don't die".

Laws are what you should be worrying about, and I don't mean those rules that call themselves laws the police will beat you up for breaking. I mean the ones that are determining your actions and (more importantly for practical application) their effects.

 

[Nicodemus]

Hail Diogenes!

 

[Sizzling Berry]

Following self-imposed rules helps me to achieve long-term goals. If I didn't do it I might go for a quick gratification, not for what is prudent in the long run .

 

[Falcon]

Externally, without "rules" there would be no genuine freedom in society, as rules theoretically bring people to respect each others' rights regardless of differentials in power (i.e. justice).

Internally, there should be also rules (i.e. ethics). The aim of these are to ensure health/biological fitness or group survival, by providing guidelines to behavior which enable long term maximization of personal and group health. Internal rules that are logical and socially useful are related to psychological health - the absence of any logically consistent and practical internal rules would bring psychological instability or insecurity.

Internal rules are necessary to respect external rules. Indeed, without the former, you need to apply force (for example, by the police) so that the latter are respected. When there is a system with a disregard for external or internal rules (i.e. corrupted), then the systems' rules foster internal chaos and insecurity instead of order and stability.

Even if you were living alone on a desert island, you would need to infer yourself internal rules for survival, as to know what you can or cannot eat for example. Simply put, rules are the basis of any intelligent human activity and consist in derived principles from experience which enable future health. You could not live without rules without compromising your health.