Philosophy of rules.

[UndercoverElephant]

Last week Darat, for fun (!), posted several sets of JREF rules. Somebody I mentioned this to described this as "a very localised version of trainspotting". Anyway, today I sat an exam and was confronted twice by rules I broke, which did not matter, but which the invigilators think did.

Rule No. 1: No mobile phones allowed with you at your desk.
Reason: People can store information on mobile phones, or call people.

I forgot this rule, and 2 minutes before the exam I realised my phone was ON! in my pocket. So I spent 30 seconds with my hand in my pocket twiddling around trying to unlock the phone and turn it off. I was spotted twiddling, and two invigilators conffered. Bzzz! I turned it off. They then spent about 3 minutes giving me funny looks and circling my desk. They had obviously figured out what was going on but couldn't decide whether or not to challenge me about it.

My question: Why mindlessly follow rules? The rule was to stop people from cheating. I was turning my phone OFF, obviously.

Rule No.2: Not allowed to leave the room in the last ten minutes of exam.

I was in a big sports hall. I was also at the front desk at the corner of the hall, and the fire exit which was no less than 6 feet from my desk had been left open because summer has actually arrived in England, at last. I has finished with ten minutes to go, and being a nicotine addict I had rolled myself a ciggarette and was ready to go for the fire exit as soon as the exam was over.... "Stop writing..." came the call. But no actual "You can leave the room now." As people reached for their belongings, I stood up to make for the fire exit and light my badly-needed cigarette and this stupid ***** woman actually stopped me and made me sit down again until I was actually given permission to leave.

My question: Why mindlessly follow rules?

 

[Dark Jaguar]

Can't think of any reason. But I can think of a few reasons to mindfully follow rules. Namely, the phone thing, you don't want to cause trouble for people trying to prevent cheating, you acknowledge that others could use the technology to cheat (in the same manner as a piece of paper stealthily placed on the floor before the exam I suppose). Best not to look suspicious if you can avoid it due to the consequences. In this case, suspicious looks (which were warrented).

As far as not leaving before they tell you to. Did they bother explaining the purpose of that rule? No matter, they are the ones in charge of grading your paper, so the reason to follow that rule is an "if you know what's good for you" one. Sometimes others being in control affect what decisions you should make. Deal with it.

But other than that, I'm glad you finally reached the lofty age of 2 or so years old and are testing your boundries with authority . Kidding, but seriously, this isn't something I'd call a new or unique question.

All I'm saying is you're right. There's no reason to mindlessly follow a rule, but plenty to follow a rule that would have consequences otherwise, even if they are consequences only those making the rules create.

 

[This Guy]

The cell phone was explained fairly well I think. It could be used to cheat, therefore the rule not to have one. If they let anyone slide, they have a moral obligation to let everyone slide. Or a hard time explaining why you were allowed your phone, but Joe, a few desk over was thrown out of the exam, because he was seen using his to cheat. Maybe not a good example, but the point is being unfair about the rules causes problems when trying to enforce the rules.

As for waiting for the word to leave, my take would be to control the room until all test had been handed in (or whatever you were required to do) to avoid the possibility of someone passing a completed exam to someone else, or perhaps stealing an exam to pass on to other classes.

Again, fairness often means mindless enforcement. It's not that they were out to get you, they were trying to maintain the needed control, and protect the possibility to punish, if it was needed for another student.

While I've had to scratch my head a bit to figure out why some rules were in place, generally, there have been good reasons.

OK, that's my opinion anyway

 

[c4ts]

My question: Why mindlessly follow rules?

While there are plenty of reasons to follow rules, the qualifier "mindlessly" eliminates most of them. I suppose if mindless people didn't follow rules they would ruin everything for themselves and others. But this would have to depend on the rules, what they are for, and such. For example, in a sport, if there were no rules, or if nobody followed them, every game would be Spartan madball. I prefer variety.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

"Again, fairness often means mindless enforcement"

"While there are plenty of reasons to follow rules, the qualifier "mindlessly" eliminates most of them"

Well, at least I provoked some disagreement.

For the record, I agree with c4ts. "Mindless" eliminates most of them. The woman who refused to let me out of the hall was being mindless. My paper was on my desk. Everyone else was preparing to leave. I was disturbing nobody. It did not matter. But....rules are rules....

 

[ceo_esq]

When may, or should, a legitimate rule be broken?

The question puts me in mind of the necessity defense in criminal law, the principle of which is often described in the following terms:

"Conduct that the actor believes to be necessary to avoid harm or evil to himself or to another is justifiable, provided that the harm or evil sought to be avoided by such conduct is greater than that sought to be prevented by the law defining the offense charged."

According to this idea, it's a "lesser of two evils" analysis.

In a more general way, it may be justifiable to break the rules when the enforcement of the rule would actually run counter to the purpose the rule was designed to serve.

I think a similar, albeit less compelling, argument can be made where the enforcement of the rule in a particular instance would simply not advance the purpose the rule was designed to serve. One problem here is that for many rules, providing for consideration/exemption of individual cases may by itself make enforcement in other cases less effective or manageable, such that generalized enforcement is preferable even though some instances of enforcement will not appreciably serve the goal of the rule. (If there turn out to be a great number of such cases, however, it can be a sign that the rule was not carefully crafted.)

 

[DreadNiK]

"Again, fairness often means mindless enforcement"

"While there are plenty of reasons to follow rules, the qualifier "mindlessly" eliminates most of them"

Well, at least I provoked some disagreement.

For the record, I agree with c4ts. "Mindless" eliminates most of them. The woman who refused to let me out of the hall was being mindless. My paper was on my desk. Everyone else was preparing to leave. I was disturbing nobody. It did not matter. But....rules are rules....

I am a person who gets very very angry with rules for the sake of rules and pettiness.

In the case of the mobile phone thing, it has to be a rule, for the reasons already given by people. In the case of leaving the exam room, the main reason is that after they collect the papers in, they count them. If everyone left as soon as the exam ended, what would stop someone sneaking someone else's paper off a desk or just knocking it off, and the exam paper getting lost. So they let you out after they count the papers. It is tiresome, but I think a few minutes of time is worth ensuring everyone gets a fair chance.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

I am a person who gets very very angry with rules for the sake of rules and pettiness.

In the case of the mobile phone thing, it has to be a rule, for the reasons already given by people. In the case of leaving the exam room, the main reason is that after they collect the papers in, they count them. If everyone left as soon as the exam ended, what would stop someone sneaking someone else's paper off a desk or just knocking it off, and the exam paper getting lost. So they let you out after they count the papers. It is tiresome, but I think a few minutes of time is worth ensuring everyone gets a fair chance.

But they don't! They leave them on the desks till everyone has gone!

The "don't leave in the last ten minutes" rule is because they don't want lots of kerfuffle as lots of people leave while people are still finishing off their work. But they had called time already and I was 5 feet from the handily open fire exit! Mindless, it was. And she knew it, judging by the look on her face. Like traffic wardens. Power.....Mmm!

 

[DreadNiK]

I'm trying to think of examples of mindless or unfair rules.

I got very irritated with my school's uniform policy, I have no problem with wearing a suit but when it infringed itself upon other aspects of my appearance that I couldnt easily change once out of school (hair, piercings), I took issue.

I can't really think of any completely mindless rules I've encountered, offhand, but I'm sure there are plenty.

 

[DreadNiK]

But they don't! They leave them on the desks till everyone has gone!

Oh.

In that case, I agree.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

I'm trying to think of examples of mindless or unfair rules.

I got very irritated with my school's uniform policy, I have no problem with wearing a suit but when it infringed itself upon other aspects of my appearance that I couldnt easily change once out of school (hair, piercings), I took issue.

I can't really think of any completely mindless rules I've encountered, offhand, but I'm sure there are plenty.

My deep hatred of mindless rule-following came at school when we had a building called "the science block" which had two sets of stairs. The one nearest the rest of the school was reserved for people going up and the ones furthest away was for going down. This rule was absolutely neccesary during the day, to stop everyone using the nearest stairs and causing collisions. One day, I was in detention on the top floor and 1 hour after school had ended and everyone had gone home I left detention and went back out of the school - down the wrong stairs, which were completely empty. You can guess how the story ends. Mindless. These are the up stairs. You will not go down them.

 

[DreadNiK]

My deep hatred of mindless rule-following came at school when we had a building called "the science block" which had two sets of stairs. The one nearest the rest of the school was reserved for people going up and the ones furthest away was for going down. This rule was absolutely neccesary during the day, to stop everyone using the nearest stairs and causing collisions. One day, I was in detention on the top floor and 1 hour after school had ended and everyone had gone home I left detention and went back out of the school - down the wrong stairs, which were completely empty. You can guess how the story ends. Mindless. These are the up stairs. You will not go down them.

Lol we had exactly the same thing. And the reasonable teachers, if you are going the wrong way say while lessons are on, or after most people have left, or just when no one else is really around, would not stop you. Then there were the ones we liked but who found it amusing to make us go around to the other flight of stairs. Then the ones who actually got angry or seemed to actually care, those are the ones I hated.

EDIT: And I mean, like, really hated. I fantasized about killing them. I even had a recurring dream about attacking my form tutor. Not just because of the stair thing, mind.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Anything involving a coat and tie is a mindless rule.

~~ Paul

 

[nescafe]

Mindless. These are the up stairs. You will not go down them.

Oh, pshaw, Next thing you know you will complain about getting a ticket for running a red light in a left-turn lane on a deserted road at 3 in the morning on your motorcycle

This has not happened to me.... yet. Stupid not-sensitive-enough buried vehicle sensors.

 

[JamesDillon]

Mindless. These are the up stairs. You will not go down them.

But... the purpose of having rules in the first place is that they eliminate the need to make case-by-case adjudications of situations that occur with sufficient frequency to make an efficient, uniform standard worthwhile. The rule is a uniform standard of conduct that ideally establishes a workable solution to a given problem in the majority of cases. The fact that cases may arise in which obedience to the rule does not promote the underlying rationale for its existence isn't really a criticism; it's an inevitable result of trying to distill general principles of conduct to apply universally to a given situation. The benefit of applying such general principles is that they are very efficient; the drawback is that you occasionally have exceptional circumstances in which following the rule may be unnecessary. That is, rules are supposed to be mindless; they allow us to avoid having to re-invent the wheel every time we come across a frequently recurring situation, such as going up or down stairs. In the absence of a compelling reason not to follow the usual rule in a given situation, it doesn't seem unreasonable to me to preserve the rule for form's sake, even if it might not be necessary in some outlying situations.