"Because That's The Rule"

I was walking The Face of Evil in the park today, as I do, and I met a nice lady named Gretchen who was walking her miniature poodle.  It was a nice and friendly conversation, which is unusual for me, more the conversation than the nice and friendly bit.  The Face of Evil was off the leash, as he almost always is because he does what he is told and is simply not dangerous.  He has never bitten anything other than flies, even when much smaller dogs have bitten him.  To give you an idea of how he listens there was a squirrel available for killing, and although he really wanted to rend the defenseless mammal he stopped when I told him to leave it.  The Face of Evil's methods are much more subtle than mere disobedience, he works by sucking your soul through the portal of compassion.

So, I was walking the beast in the park happily with a woman and a tiny dog.  It is hard for me to think of a less threatening scene involving a dog.  A woman called from a distance necessary to yell, "Is that dog on a leash?"  To which I replied, "No."  She then yelled for me to put the dog on a leash.  I waved and wished her a nice day, while walking in the opposite direction.  She, at all times, had the opportunity to simply walk around the corner and away out of sight.  She decided to stay in place and yell at me to put the dog on a leash.

There is a rule that all dogs must be on a leash in the park.  I know this.  There are people who are afraid of dogs.  I know this too.  I have even had someone call the police to tell me to put the dog on a leash 9the only method of enforcement) and he and I both knew that this was really stupid and a waste of time.  Most of the time the park staff wave and say, "Hello."  Why is there a rule in place that those in charge of enforcing it think is stupid?  It isn't to stop dogs attacking people, dogs in parks simply don't do that.  It is to protect the parks from lawsuits.

Why was this woman yelling?  If she was afraid of dogs she could have simply walked around the corner and been completely safe.  People do very strange things, but staying in place and yelling at what you are frightened of seems so strange for me to dismiss it.  The only reason I can think of is that there was a rule and she really wanted me to follow it.

"Because it's a rule" is a remarkably common reason for someone wishing you to do something.  I generally hear it after any rational reason for someone to follow a rule has been exhausted, but the person still wants me to follow that rule.  I remember this being most common in educational establishments.  Why do people use this "argument?"  The first reason given is that if people don't follow the rules there is anarchy.  It is true that if there are no rules at all, or no-one obeys them, then there is anarchy.  But breaking one rule doesn't mean that all rules are broken, just that one rule is broken.  If the rule does no harm, then the only thing that happens is the breaking of the rule.  It seems to be that the problem is simply that a rule is broken.

Why is there a problem with rules being broken?  It is because it is perceived as an act of defiance against authority.  People are trying to have everyone behave within the strictures of authority.  There is a desire for people to obey, even when it doesn't matter.  Why do people have this desire?  I think it is built in to the human psyche from two sources, functionality of groups, and raising children.  Groups where there is no leader, and everyone simply does what they want are historically ineffective.  Anyone who has seen a meeting without a defined leader knows what I am talking about.  If you are hunting a large, dangerous animal stopping to discuss strategy is a bad plan.  Raising children is the most obvious example of, "Because that's the rule."

Children ask the best question, "Why?"  When repeated enough times this line of questioning really gets down to the nitty gritty.  At the base of all reasons why a child must follow a rule is that, while the intentions of the rule are usually for the child's own good, the child is powerless and the parent can make them do it.  We really don't like to think about it that way, but when it is time to go home and the child doesn't want to go home even after being given a sensible reason, that child is going to be physically forced to go home.  With children, "Because it's a rule" is adults trying to avoid the truth that the reason is actually, "Because I can, and will, make you."  After years of such conditioning it is not surprising that the unthinking following of rules is commonplace.

Have you ever been at a junction with stop signs in all directions and no cars or pedestrians?  Have you not come to a complete stop but rather slowed down to a very slow roll and then driven on through?  This happens every day, with most drivers.  People speed.  In fact people speed so ubiquitously that to not speed can be dangerous in some situations.  If you are going 20 miles slower than the rest of traffic you are essentially reversing down the highway at 20mph.  In many places in the USA there is a rule against jaywalking, crossing the road at places not designated for pedestrians.  Only crazy people don't jaywalk when it is safe to do so.

There are rules that everyone breaks and no-one really seems to mind.  Why is this?  It's because breaking those rules has been made part of the culture.  The cultural rule is that breaking those institutional rules is OK.  What matters is the culture rather than the legality. 

The example at the beginning of this post shows pretty clearly that there are large differences in attitudes to following rules.  Jonathon Haidt has done wonderful research into these differences in psychology.  It can be summed up by different groups (that seem to be largely genetically based) coming to moral decisions based on different criteria.  Sensibly named liberals and conservatives, he calls his theory/findings the Moral Foundations Theory.  The criteria for moral decisions can be broken down into six areas.  The more liberal you are the more you base your decisions on care/harm, and fairness/cheating.  The more conservative you are the more you base your decisions on loyalty/betrayal, authority/subversion, and sanctity/degradation.  By the way, Haidt actually says that conservatives understand the moral decisions of liberals better than the other way round.  People who think you should follow rules regardless of whether they are useful or not think this because they value loyalty to those who set the rules, respect for authority, and possibly the sanctity of obeying (the #1 subject of the Bible).  People who think you should only follow rules that are useful value whether the rule does harm or not, and whether it is fair, or not.  I don't want to suggest for a minute that almost all people care about all of these factors, just that these are trends, and strong ones at that.

I am extremely liberal morally.  I basically only care whether something does harm, is fair, or is oppressive.  If you tell me to do something harmful and unfair to stop something that the authority figure of my group thinks is disgusting I will simply not do it.  In fact, if you want me to not do something, probably the most effective way would be to tell me I must do it because you say so.  I actively dislike people who think differently, although I take some time to understand why they think that way.  The reason people are opposed to gay marriage is because they think of it as a rebellion against their group (church/nation), subversion of authority (they are destroying our America) and it is disgusting to them.  The reason I support gay marriage (in practice, I think the words don't matter) is because I think it does no harm, is fair, and allows people to have more freedom of choice.  Morally I am almost freakishly liberal.

The only way to change the morality of conservatives is to convince them that the authority of their group has decided that a particular moral position is sacred.  If you think this is impossible go find a conservative and suggest that we should start owning slaves again.  They will be outraged despite the fact that less than two hundred years ago conservatives supported slavery because the Bible said it was right.

While I get the nervous thrum of adrenaline with almost any confrontation, I also very much enjoyed the dismay of that woman trying to tell me I must do something.