2009-06-21, 07:49 PM
I don't think following and breaking the rules necessarily have to be contradictory processes. I think rules serve as a good foundation, a starting point, and can be molded (and evolve) as necessary with changing times, society, perceptions, etc.
Generally rules should have a basis for their existence so there should be some logical reason they exist in the first place, but that basis may eventually be proven to be out-of-date or downright wrong for certain situations. And that is when rules should change.
Even with your example of eating habits, I wonder how many people really follow that schedule consistently (I certainly don't). And new research has suggested that it is in fact healthier to eat more small meals during your day instead of keeping yourself on your daily three. Perhaps it's a good starting point to reinforce that people should eat regularly and generally at the same time during their day, but it is not a rule you must follow to the letter.
As with laws regarding "cloning", who are the people who make these laws? They are politicians. Do they have adequate scientific knowledge to make fair and reasonable laws regarding a topic they know little about? Do they truly understand the real advantages and disadvantages that cloning offers? To what value do scientists give these set of rules when there is little scientific basis to them?
I guess that means therefore that there are good and bad rules. It is then up to the individual to decide which rules are worth following. So yes while it is important to "follow the rules" to a certain extent in which they are useful to be followed, you do have to "break the rules" when there is really no value in following them. This "pick and choose" approach only really works if people truly understand the intent and basis of a set of rules, and not treat them as merely a mindless list of things to do and not to do.
Generally rules should have a basis for their existence so there should be some logical reason they exist in the first place, but that basis may eventually be proven to be out-of-date or downright wrong for certain situations. And that is when rules should change.
Even with your example of eating habits, I wonder how many people really follow that schedule consistently (I certainly don't). And new research has suggested that it is in fact healthier to eat more small meals during your day instead of keeping yourself on your daily three. Perhaps it's a good starting point to reinforce that people should eat regularly and generally at the same time during their day, but it is not a rule you must follow to the letter.
As with laws regarding "cloning", who are the people who make these laws? They are politicians. Do they have adequate scientific knowledge to make fair and reasonable laws regarding a topic they know little about? Do they truly understand the real advantages and disadvantages that cloning offers? To what value do scientists give these set of rules when there is little scientific basis to them?
I guess that means therefore that there are good and bad rules. It is then up to the individual to decide which rules are worth following. So yes while it is important to "follow the rules" to a certain extent in which they are useful to be followed, you do have to "break the rules" when there is really no value in following them. This "pick and choose" approach only really works if people truly understand the intent and basis of a set of rules, and not treat them as merely a mindless list of things to do and not to do.