There is a difference between breaking rules and breaking the law. Breaking the law is breaking a set of rules that lead to an enforced social consequence. The rules that I’m talking about however, are the rules that we create for ourselves throughout life. An example out be to say “bless you” when someone sneezes or hold the door for the person behind you. Those rules are a minor inconvenience to yourself and helpful to others.
What about the other rules you create in your life? How many times have you been asked for a favor and didn’t want to do it, but decided to anyway? How many times have you worked in a workplace and found it increasingly difficult to work under their ineffective work structure? There are a lot of cases where rules have been put in place as a temporary solution to an evolving part of society. Change will always happen. Rules cannot be set in stone for that reason.
- Times change. Rules should change to complement the current times.
- Morals and values are the first rules to look at breaking when stuck in a plateau
- Rules will hold you back
- Some rules are laws. Be careful of the consequences from breaking laws
- Social ostracism is not a consequence to fear
In order to break the rules, you must first understand if the benefits out weight the consequences. Holding the door for your neighbor and general etiquette is easy to maintain with little consequence. Breaking those rules may inconvenience you more in the long run than they would benefit you. How about if you’re late to work and you take a parking spot that someone was waiting for? That’s tricky, because now morals play a role. Let’s play this out. One one side of the coin, you’re late to work and you desperately need that spot or you’ll get fired. On the other side of the coin, you have someone that’s been waiting, frustrated and late as well. What do you do here? Regardless of your choice, you have to consider the possibility of breaking your own rules of morality and go against your values.
It’s nothing personal to the other person, but scarcity usually promotes competition and you need to compete for your own resources. Is it right? Is it wrong? Remember, “Right” and “wrong” are only opinions. Effective and ineffective, however are facts. It’s ineffective to give up the spot, even though someone else has been waiting for it for a long time. What’s more effective, but most (including myself) would consider to be wrong, is to take the spot and preserve your resources. Sometimes, it isn’t about right or wrong. It’s about what is effective.
Some rules are laws that have ineffective consequences. Although, not all laws will have undesirable consequences. J-walking for example, is one of those laws. Practically speaking, it’s more convenient to break that law over concerning yourself with the consequences of punishment. Breaking laws like robbing a bank because you would like to gain money fast is completely not worth it.
Let’s say you’re $100.00 short on your bills for the month and you find a $100.00 bill on the floor. You pick it up, but someone approaches you saying “hey, I dropped that bill!”, what would you do? You can passively hand them them money or keep it. If you give it back, there is no loss to you since you just technically found it. If you keep it, you have a bonus take care of your deficit of the month, but you also risk someone else suffering the loss of the money they earned. Lets get technical again. You don’t really know if that person is telling the truth. It’s your word against their’s.