Bending the Rules

Patrick Henry:

I sometimes wonder to what extent the rules can be permitted to be bent.

Doctor Thomas:

What rules?Bent in what way?

Patrick Henry:

THE rules. Bent any way. Perhaps definable as being bent towards achieving the proactical outcomes the rules were intended to achieve in the first place.

Doctor Thomas:

Bending the "rules" in a valuable way is the essence of intelligent ethical judgement. Its supposed to be what you might learn at university in an ethics subject.

The question "to what extent" cannot, logically speaking, have an answer. If it did, then this answer could serve as a rule.

My rough rule of thumb - weigh up the consequences of the advantages of bending the rules in this particular case, and the disadvantages - including the disadvantage of impacting on the culture of rule keeping. It's a bit of a subtle judgement, and depends on the relevant cultural system - if you are surrounded by idiots who only understand formal rules and rule keeping, its better to stick to the rules. If you are surrounded by enlightened individuals who understand that bending the rules doesn't amount to the collapse of civilisation, but that nevertheless rule bending requires sound judgement, then it might be better to bend them.

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, but if the minds really are actually unredeemably constrained in their littleness, then foolish consistency is probably preferable to anarchy.That's my normative theory of rule bending.