How strictly do we have to follow rules?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Kitsa
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
K

Kitsa

Guest
I’m not talking about rules that would be immoral to follow, or about moral principles. I’m talking about civil laws, contract terms, policies, etc. that may not make sense under strict interpretation in a given situation.

Are we bound by laws that don’t make sense? (That actually don’t make sense, not just that we can’t be bothered to research)
What about laws that do generally make sense, but become unreasonable in a certain situation?
How much room is there for interpretation to do something that doesn’t literally follow the rule but comes closer to fulfilling its actual purpose?
Does it make a difference if you’ve directly agreed to follow the set of rules (e.g. by signing a contract)?

I’m hesitant to give examples because I want to discuss the general principles rather than debating a specific situation, but we can certainly go into some if it ends up being too confusing in the abstract.

I’m especially looking for Church resources on the subject - everything I’ve been able to find is about either immoral laws or moral scrupulosity.
 
From the Catechism:
" 1903 Authority is exercised legitimately only when it seeks the common good of the groupconcerned and if it employs morally licitmeans to attain it. If rulers were to enactunjust laws or take measures contrary to the moral order, such arrangements would not be binding in conscience. In such a case, "authority breaks down completely and results in shameful abuse.“23”
Click to expand...
In other words, if the law doesn’t conflict with Catholic moral teaching, you are obliged to obey it.
 
Last edited:
  • When a law does not make sense, we must always remember that reasons may not be visible to us. Every law does not make sense to somebody. I could try to rope in give to Cesar what Belongs to Cesar.
  • Reasonable law with unreasonable times. Example: Don’t cut down trees, current condition: massive worldwide oil shortage. Man is master of earth? Hard to say as anyone can lay claims to the situation as to hard. I don’t know.
  • Fulfill the purpose but not the rule. Hard to say as interpretation is vague. Specific examples output easy answers but abstract questions get hard.
  • Difference if you agreed to follow rules. In a non-malicious negotiation I assume so. Rare is it that you are given a choice. I don’t agree to the law yet I live in a place where the law in enforced.
The question has such wide a scope and to answer is it a sin is easy while guiding principles for Catholicism requires skill.

Welcome to CAF @Kitsa
 
After some more thought, I’ve come up with a few examples that I think capture the essence of what I’m trying to ask:
  1. Law that doesn’t make sense: Suppose there’s a speed limit of 50mph on an interstate that’s wide open, well paved, and doesn’t turn. You’re familiar with the road, and have unintentionally gone above the speed limit before, so you know that it’s safe. Are you still obligated to follow the speed limit? (I think yes, based on the passage Fauken posted)
  2. Changed situation: Suppose your job forbids you from playing video audibly because it could disturb others, but you’re working late and you know for a fact no one’s around anymore. Could you forego headphones? (I think yes, but on what principle?)
  3. Aim for purpose: Suppose you’re a new driver, and you’re overwhelmed by all the things you have to keep track of. Consequently, you often find yourself losing track of your speed, and often speeding. But when you devote all your attention to the speed gage, you’re at a higher risk of crashing. Should you let it slide (as long as you’re not speeding horribly), and focus on driving safely? (I think yes, but on what principle?)
  4. Degrees of interpretation: Suppose you work security in a high risk facility, and have to check every room “accessible to staff” every hour to ensure no accidents have happened (i.e. you’re not concerned about break-ins). At a particular time, you know that only 3 staff members are signed in (and no one can get in without signing in) and they’ve been in the same room with you since your last rounds. Do you still need to make your rounds? (I think no, although I’m less certain)
  5. Types of agreement: Does the answer to #2 or #4 change depending on whether you signed a contract with those clauses or if it was just a verbal request? (I’m not sure)
 
You are bound in principle to obey the laws unless obeying it would conflict with the Law of God.
 
I asked a similar question myself the other day. In principle, yes, we are obliged to obey any civil law that does not conflict with the law of God. However, someone mentioned this interesting article (Poker & Legamorons – Jimmy Akin), written from a Thomistic perspective, in which the author concludes that we are not bound in conscience to obey a law where it would not be rational for the state to enforce it. In some cases, there may be things which are against the letter of an ordinarily just and rational law but which it would be absurd or oppressive for the state to enforce.
 
Last edited:
Right. But who decides that? A person who determines the state shouldnt waste its money arresting pot users? Or ke who thinks it’s a waste and dumb to try to enforce a speed limit on my subdivision street today. I’m perfectly fine going 95 in front of my house. No one is around. No kids, and I’m capable of safely handling it. Human nature says that we will always rationalize a law we are breaking.
 
Kitsa said:
Suppose you’re a new driver, and you’re overwhelmed by all the things you have to keep track of. Consequently, you often find yourself losing track of your speed, and often speeding.
Click to expand...
That’s part of being in a learning curve. A reasonable person with reasonable intelligence will eventually learn to coordinate all the factors that go into driving.
You’re not deliberately trying to be rebellious, there’s just a lot to learn.
Kitsa said:
Suppose you work security in a high risk facility, and have to check every room “accessible to staff” every hour to ensure no accidents have happened
Click to expand...
As an employee, you’re there to work. If they require hourly rounding, then do hourly rounding.
Where the real dilemma comes in is when an employee has more tasks and regulations within a specific timeframe (ie overtime is forbidden) than can actually be accomplished, and the bosses know but don’t care. What is the morality/ethicality of cutting corners?
There are a lot of job sites where this is a real, everyday issue.
What winds up happening in real life is the employees cut corners, the bosses turn a blind eye, everybody rocks along until a tragedy strikes, then the Powers That Be make sure some heads roll to appease the enraged public to put down their pitchforks and torches.
But that’s a whole another thread.
 
That’s part of being in a learning curve. A reasonable person with reasonable intelligence will eventually learn to coordinate all the factors that go into driving.
You’re not deliberately trying to be rebellious, there’s just a lot to learn.
Click to expand...
Exactly. It’s not a permanent situation, but it is an example of a time where you have to weigh other factors than literally following the letter of the law.
As an employee, you’re there to work. If they require hourly rounding, then do hourly rounding.
Click to expand...
Does the wording of the requirement matter? There’s already some flexibility in that you only have to check places that are “accessible.” Have the staff members had access to anywhere if you know they’ve been in the same room the whole time?
 
Thank you! This is a really interesting article, and the Thomistic perspective was exactly the sort of thing I was looking for.

The big question it does raise for me, though, is how does this relate to “Render unto Caesar”? My understanding is that Caesar’s tax laws weren’t necessarily fair (and therefore might not meet the criteria of being rational or for the common good), yet here we have Jesus saying that people do still need to follow them. I’m sure Aquinas wasn’t ignoring this, so how do they fit together?
 
Because if something weird happens, like somebody walks on-site you didn’t know about or whatever, you’ve covered your butt.
If you don’t round, and something happens, you will get thrown under the bus.
But apart from that, the wording does matter. The boss owns the business and gets to make the rules.
 
Well, the interpretation and implications of “render unto Caesar” would be a whole other topic. Certainly, however, it cannot be taken to require absolute obedience to Caesar, since the Church teaches that a law contrary to the Faith or to reason is not morally binding (or not a law at all). The real question, I suppose, is not whether we can ever disobey the law but under what circumstances. I think the article helps in that regard, and it also accords with ‘common sense’. At the same time, we have to be wary of the danger of rationalisation, as pointed out by @Hoosier-Daddy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top