Rules were made to be broken

[sedonaman]

I have had numerous knock-down, drag-out discussions with fellow Catholics and non-Catholics alike about the notion that “Rules were made to be broken.”

My response to Catholics with this view was, “Do you mean God wants you to steal, curse, covet, etc.? The pope wants you to miss mass?”

Only one [a non-religious] offered an explanation [and a weak one at that] of what he meant by it, i.e., rules need to be adopted to the individual situation. I didn’t disagree because there are always mitigating circumstances; for example, this is what juries are for. I explained that tempering a rule is not the same as saying it is meant to be broken. He offered no further explanation.

No others offered any explanation when pressed to explain why rules are even made if they are intended to be broken.

What do you say “Rules were made to be broken” means? I would be interested in hearing what other religions have to say about it, too.

 

[momor]

I don’t agree with the statement. I have always thought it to be a sarcastic remark, not a serious one.

 

[kozlosap]

It is almost a definition of relativism…

 

[nickybr38]

I hate the term rules are made to be broken. It’s a blatant disregard for authority - at least that’s my opinion.

This is a society that HATES authority though. That’s why Relativism has taken such a strong hold in the hearts and minds of so many Christian’s and non-Christian’s alike.

Ugh. So annoying.

I have no idea how to argue it though. Usually I just vehemently insist that rules were made for a reason. There’s not much else I can do in the face of people who are so disrespectful.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Rules come from various sources. If the source is misguided then the rule may well need to be broken. If the source is correctly guided the rule should be followed. Jesus broke many of the Pharisee’s rules.

 

[Cristiano]

I have had numerous knock-down, drag-out discussions with fellow Catholics and non-Catholics alike about the notion that “Rules were made to be broken.”

My response to Catholics with this view was, “Do you mean God wants you to steal, curse, covet, etc.? The pope wants you to miss mass?”

Only one [a non-religious] offered an explanation [and a weak one at that] of what he meant by it, i.e., rules need to be adopted to the individual situation. I didn’t disagree because there are always mitigating circumstances; for example, this is what juries are for. I explained that tempering a rule is not the same as saying it is meant to be broken. He offered no further explanation.

No others offered any explanation when pressed to explain why rules are even made if they are intended to be broken.

What do you say “Rules were made to be broken” means? I would be interested in hearing what other religions have to say about it, too.

Man made rules are meant to be broken because man is not perfect and he cannot account for all the possible conditions interacting with the rules. However, God given rules (including man made but inspired by the Holy Spirit) are not meant to be broken because of the perfection of the source.

 

[sedonaman]

Man made rules are meant to be broken because man is not perfect and he cannot account for all the possible conditions interacting with the rules. …

Then why does man make rules if he intends that they be broken? Why bother?

As a mind experiment, suppose you were sued by the IRS for not paying taxes that you owed according to the rules *, and you told the tax court judge that the government’s rules were made to be broken because their source is “imperfect”, and so you broke the rule that says you must pay your taxes. How far do you think that argument would go?

Then again, if rules were made to be broken, does it also apply to the rule that says rules are made to be broken?*

 

[Cristiano]

Then why does man make rules if he intends that they be broken? Why bother?

As a mind experiment, suppose you were sued by the IRS for not paying taxes that you owed according to the rules *, and you told the tax court judge that the government’s rules were made to be broken because their source is “imperfect”, and so you broke the rule that says you must pay your taxes. How far do you think that argument would go?

Then again, if rules were made to be broken, does it also apply to the rule that says rules are made to be broken?*

I think that you are mixing absolute validity of a fallible rule with the expectation that the rule at on point will fail. Man makes rules because most of the time they are useful, that does not mean that there is the expectation that they will be infallible.

Your last paradox is simply due to the fact that you are trying to play with a system that is logically closed.

 

[sedonaman]

I think that you are mixing absolute validity of a fallible rule with the expectation that the rule at on point will fail. Man makes rules because most of the time they are useful, that does not mean that there is the expectation that they will be infallible.

You are the one who introduced an infallible requirement in order in order for a rule to be valid. Your statement that “man makes rules because most of the time they are useful” contradicts your statement that they are made to be broken. If people followed the rule that rules were made to be broken, then they would not be useful at all, and all utility would be lost. If the civil authorities followed the same rule, they would not bother to make any rules in the first place, and, again, no useful purpose would result.

Your last paradox is simply due to the fact that you are trying to play with a system that is logically closed.

Rather it comes from the absurd proposition that rules were made to be broken, because it doesn’t pass its own test.

 

[Cristiano]

You are the one who introduced an infallible requirement in order in order for a rule to be valid. Your statement that “man makes rules because most of the time they are useful” contradicts your statement that they are made to be broken. If people followed the rule that rules were made to be broken, then they would not be useful at all, and all utility would be lost. If the civil authorities followed the same rule, they would not bother to make any rules in the first place, and, again, no useful purpose would result.

Rather it comes from the absurd proposition that rules were made to be broken, because it doesn’t pass its own test.

I think that I read more or probably less into what the title meant. I was looking more at the statement that rules are made with the expectation that they will be broken. Such a statement is quite different from the one that says that rules are made with the intent of being broken. There is a big difference between expectation that something will happen and having the intent of something happening. Now I see where you are coming from.

 

[vera_dicere]

Are rules the same as laws?

I always understood the statement of breaking a “rule”, like “don’t skateboard through the school corriodor” as opposed to breaking a law of “dont murder”.

I view the Church’s teachings, especially doctrine, as law, and thus not meant to be broken.

I’ve always perferred the “don’t break teh rules, just bend them a little”.

Of course, it still goes to show a lack of respect for authority, which is not a bad thing as so many selfish individuals would have us beleive.

 

[nickybr38]

Of course, it still goes to show a lack of respect for authority, which is not a bad thing as so many selfish individuals would have us beleive.

? Are you saying it’s selfish to expect people to respect authority figures? Someone has to be a leader, someone else has to be a follower. If we’re all fighting to lead we all get no where.

 

[Lutheranteach]

I was told rules are made to be broken…if, and only if, you can replace it with a better rule.

 

[sedonaman]

I think that I read more or probably less into what the title meant. I was looking more at the statement that rules are made with the expectation that they will be broken. Such a statement is quite different from the one that says that rules are made with the intent of being broken. There is a big difference between expectation that something will happen and having the intent of something happening. Now I see where you are coming from.

 

[sedonaman]

Are rules the same as laws?

I always understood the statement of breaking a “rule”, like “don’t skateboard through the school corriodor” as opposed to breaking a law of “dont murder”.
…

I would say that laws are a type of rule.