Morals, Ethics, and the role of Rules

[Beavah 205]

Since this ol' silly topic came up yet again, seems like a good time to move it over here to Issues so that those who want to debate ethical systems get out of the way of those who are just interested in program. Maybe we can just come back here all the time and it will have unending life like the atheist thread, eh?

 

The topic is "What is the proper role of rules and regulations in a small-scale voluntary society, and how do we teach kids that?" A corollary may be "How much do we seek to understand and courteously tolerate other views?"

 

I ask as a favor and a courtesy that each poster begin with his/her own personal ethical perspective and background, so we have a context in which to place the comments which follow.

[FScouter 24]

Rules are established by the members of a group to guide the group as a whole. I find it perfectly ethical to object to a rule, and to petition the group to change or vacate the rule. I find it repugnant and completely unethical to ignore the rule, interpret the rule to mean something else, or to belittle or trivialize the rule. The same applies to an individual that makes up a rule and misleads other members of the group to believe that the group established the made-up rule.

[SR540Beaver 116]

Breaking, bending, tweaking, changing, ignoring, interpreting, etc. the rules is easy and anyone can do it. It takes trustworthyness, loayalty and character to accept and follow the rules you've agreed to live by.

 

Following my company's policies and rules is a requirement of my future continued employment. Joining and following the rules of a small scale voluntary society is strictly by my choice. I choose to live by the Oath and the Law on MY honor. For me, part of that means setting an example for the kids I work with to do the right thing by following the rules.

[Beavah 205]

Yah, my own personal perspective is as a "main line" and convinced Christian. "Main line" in that I'm not of Fundamentalist background, but rather believe that human reason and enlightened personal conscience have key roles to play in helping us toward what is right. Christian in that I believe in an objective, accessible, caring "external Truth" that can be known and accepted in faith. My tradition's view of the role of law and principles is perhaps best defined by Jesus' interaction with the scribes and Pharisee's in Matthew's Gospel, Paul's Epistle to the Romans, and Luther's writings on the bishops of medieval Germany. Yah, and I have some personal experience with civil law on both the practical and policy side, and believe American jurisprudence is grounded in the same tradition.

 

So personally, I believe having some rules and norms are a necessary feature of any society, including our little Scouting societies. But some rules are more important than others (Ex. constitutions vs. statutes vs. executive orders). All rules, however, are meant to serve principles, and to lead people to the point where they rely on principles rather than rules. The average citizen does not need a law to know murder is wrong, we just know it to be contrary to our principles. That's where I want our kids to be. Murder is not wrong because "it's against the rules and I'll be punished." Murder is wrong because "it's my role as a man to help and care for others."

 

In that vein, all human rules are subject to the authority of universal principles, as decided by reason and enlightened personal conscience. And all rules are subject to pragmatic and rational good judgment in their execution, so as to best achieve their just ends.

 

-----

Breakin' longwinded pontification with fun example

-----

 

So I would teach scouts to use reason and judgment and personal conscience in the application of any rule. If the troop rule is "no candy while on a campout", but the PL knows Bill is homesick and needs some conversation and some comfort food, I want the PL to say "J2, J15, J15b" and sit down to some M&M's and some Cherry Coke with the lad.

 

At the same time, when da PL finds the young rascals Joey and Scott with candy in their tent, I expect him to say "R2, R3, R7", take the candy away and give them an admonishment about the rule and the reasons for it. Making individual adjustments for Bill does not mean "everybody can do anything."

 

Now, if I thought the PL blew the call, I might let it go and let him learn on his own, or I might privately share other ways of thinking for him to consider, but I would never condemn him as "wrong" if he were doing his best - especially not to a member of his patrol.

 

Our telling someone on the forum that "your SE is wrong, go argue!" feels to me exactly like telling Joey "your PL is wrong, go argue!". I'm astonished by it.

 

-------

End of Example

-------

 

I would hope any young man or woman I've had the pleasure of serving in Scouting would be able to make the same judgment for any of the J's or R's, and any rule. I think the mission of Scouting is to get them beyond the beginner notion of "just follow the rules because they come from Authority" to a level of deeper and more principled understanding.

 

So dat's my personal belief, and the perspective of my tradition, eh? Yah, I don't want to argue it with anyone, but I hope in the spirit of SL12 that it's understood, welcomed, and respected. At least to the point that when it's offered, the response from one of da moderators is somethin' other than sayin' I'm teachin' the youth to make unethical choices.

 

Yer brother in service,

 

Beavah

 

[Lisabob 13]

OK Beavah so taking your example, I'd want the PL to sit down with the homesick scout and eat something OTHER THAN candy and cherry coke. Just because the lad is craving comfort food doesn't mean we have to break our "no candy on campouts" policy. That extra piece of dump cake that no one claimed or leftover cinnamon biscuit from breakfast might work just fine.

 

There you go - have your cake and eat it too (literally). PL helps his charge while staying within the bounds of agreed-upon policy.

 

Besides, where'd PL get that bag of m&ms from, knowing that he wasn't supposed to bring candy to the camp out? Surely, your honest PL wouldn't have thought to break the rules by stashing the goodies in his pillow case before leaving for camp, right? Or are you suggesting that it is ok for the PL to break the rule, bring the candy "just in case" precisely because he's the PL? And doesn't that mean the PL might as well bring candy every time? Hey, you never know when you'll need a game boy or a TV either - maybe he (but not the other boys) can bring those next time too. And heck, if no homesick boy needs them then the PL might as well use them, right? Yeah, that's called abuse of power in my book. Sort of like, "All animals are equal but some are more equal than others."

[Oak Tree 15]

Most rules are made by people in order to achieve certain ends. That is, the rules are not made up just to have rules. As long as the rules are helpful in achieving those ends, it makes sense to follow them. But it's the ends that are important, not the rules themselves. You need to take into account all of the consequences of your actions, but if, as a whole, the rules do not help you guide your actions to achieve the goals, then change your actions. For every rule, it's the case that someone else came up with the rule, but I'm a thinking, reasoning human being, and I can evaluate whether that rule is actually the best course of action in my situation.

 

The problem with examples is that it can be hard to take into account all of the circumstances. So while Beavah sets up a plausible scenario, Lisa'bob can postulate additional assumptions that might affect the best course of action.

 

How about this? A Scout is homesick and goes into his tent crying and eating M&Ms, and asks to be left alone for a little while. Is the right thing to do to march into the tent and take away the food?

 

In all of these situations, each side can add information to the scenario that affects the best outcome. So my goal isn't to argue about the specific situation; it's just to say that I'd at least evaluate the conditions and decide how to proceed.

 

Oak Tree

[Eamonn 61]

In many ways my morals are a result of my upbringing. My moral values (things I hold to be right and wrong) were shaped by my education,my parents,the examples that were set,traditions, and the culture I was raised in.

Being as I was brought up in a family with strong Irish Roman Catholic beliefs, attended Catholic Schools. I know this played a big role in shaping my moral values.

I'm sure my moral thinking helps shape my ethical thinking.

As a package deal both my morals and ethics are what make up my Virtues or character.

I like to think and try hard to be:Honest,courageous, compassionate, generous,fair, have self-control, and all that good stuff.

I believe that a person with good morals,good virtues is an ethical person.

I also believe I'm a free thinker. I'm free to belong or not to belong to any group I choose (within reason.)

There has been times when I questioned some of the groups I belong to and did leave. Some of these groups I choose to return to and some I left for good.

Some groups have rules and regulations that might seem silly to me, but I'm willing to go along with the rules because I don't see it as being a big deal.

For some reason the dinning room at the club refuses to serve people wearing blue jeans! I don't see the sense in this but it's not a big deal to me and the other members seem happy to go along with it.I was aware of the rule before I joined.

We talk a lot about preparing young people to make ethical and moral choices.

The values found in the Scout Oath and Law, will we hope become their virtues, help shape their character and this will lead to them making ethical choices.

When it comes to looking at or making rules we need to look at:

Which course develops moral and ethical thinking?

Which course of action promotes the common good?

What good or what harm will the rule /change of rule make?

What course of action is fair?

Does it show favoritism or discrimination?

What moral rights do those people affected have, and which course of action best respects those rights?

We also talk about Training young people in citizenship, service, and leadership.There are times when as a good citizen the rule may seem wrong or be wrong. Morally breaking the law is not the thing to do (At least not to my mind -Which goes back to how I was raised.)

Most people would agree that the 12 points of the Scout Law do help shape ethical character.

At times I think we all have a hard time with each point. The point that seems to be the hardest to keep is Obedient.

I'm not sure how we can stand up and on our honor make an oath to do our best to keep the Scout Law and then not do it.

Surely this is both ethically and morally wrong?

Eamonn.

 

 

 

 

 

 

(This message has been edited by Eamonn)

[Beavah 205]

So Lisa'bob (and some of the rest), as I asked in the original posting, what's your own personal ethical framework and background, so that we have a context in which to place your comments? Seems unfair to start by attackin' without first sharin'. Like SR540 says, that's too easy, anyone can do it. Ethics and ethical discussions require personal investment to be meaningful.

 

Understandin' Eamonn's background, for example, helps to place his words in broader context. His religious tradition places a much greater emphasis on hierarchy and obedience than those of us from a more Protestant background, where personal conscience and faith play a more central role. Knowin' that, each of us can frame our discussion in a way that's respectful of the other's tradition.

 

Eamonn, me personally, I think Kindness is the hardest of the Law. These days, rules are a dime a dozen and are multiplied daily. Impossible to memorize 'em all even if you're a lawyer. No doubt after the tragedy in Virginia, we'll generate still more rules... when probably what was needed was a few acts of kindness to an awkward, lonely young man when he was new to the country and talked funny. Kindness means givin' up the notions we have that we are better than even the poorest of men.

 

Yah, Kindness is hard.

 

Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[evmori 11]

I am a Christian. Raised Catholic now Presbyterian. Denomination in name only. I believe the Bible is the completely factual word of God.

 

Rules are in place to give order & ensure freedoms. Without rules there is chaos. Ethical & moral people will follow the rules in place & work to have those rules they feel are wrong changed or removed.

 

All rules are interpretable. Just look at the 1st Amendment. Nowhere does it state the church & state should be separate, but it has been interpreted that way.

 

How a rule is worded is just as important as the rule. Words like "prohibit", "ban", "forbidden" are much more effective than "should not" and "may not". Using the latter lends to interpretation where the former is more straightforward.

 

Great topic Beavah! Thanks!

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

[Eamonn 61]

While I know that there is a thread open about what happened on Monday in Virginia and I don't want to hijack this thread.

For now I'm happy to wait for the report that the Governor has said he will ask for. I'm not sure what went wrong? I'm not sure what can be done to prevent such a thing happening again.

Some things that come to my mind are. Gun control.Beefed up security -Cameras, mental health reports, the list could go on.

Just about all the things I can think of in some way do take away or infringe on peoples personal freedoms.

This is where we have to look at:

" Which course develops moral and ethical thinking?

Which course of action promotes the common good?

What good or what harm will the rule /change of rule make?

What course of action is fair?

Does it show favoritism or discrimination?

What moral rights do those people affected have, and which course of action best respects those rights?

Maybe the " Which course develops moral and ethical thinking?" doesn't come into play in this case.

But to bring it down to our boy sized world.

How would we deal with a Scout who was hurting and maybe bullying other Scouts? if he came from a troubled home or had a troubled background? Would this change the way we would deal with him?

Maybe due to my age I'm not remembering things but 30 years ago when I first became a leader I don't remember hearing of children with ADD and ADD HA. Of course now I have and am willing to allow these children some "Slack". I now know that this is an illness.Still even if this is an illness is it an excuse for lack of respect?

I think maybe we (Beavah & I) might see "Kindness" in different lights? While of course I think we would agree that being cruel, mean or mean hearted is never good. I think we need a lot of information to be kind. Buying a kid an ice cream might seem like the kind thing to do, but if his parents don't for some some reason want him to have one? Maybe it's just not the right thing to do? Unless we are aware of the reason. I can hear my Mother saying "It will spoil your dinner!!" But maybe the kid has a diet where ice cream could harm him?

It's hard to talk about the Bible without upsetting some people. I hope that in keeping with being Reverent I don't upset anyone.

I'll admit that my knowledge of the Bible isn't all it should be. Maybe because I spent so much time having the Catechism of the Catholic Church drilled into me?

I can't help feeling that the New Testament gives the Pharisees a bad rap.

I know that Matthew goes out of his way to show them as being opponents and critics of Jesus.

But it seems to me that I don't know very much about them, what they believed in? Or what they stood for? While it's easy now to see them as the bad guys maybe at the time they seen Jesus and his teachings as going against everything they had been brought up to believe as being right?

They might have seen what was happening as going against the teachings of the Torah?

We can look at them getting upset about confrontation between Jesus and the Pharisees, when Jesus cured a lame man on the Sabbath telling him to " Pick up his bed and walk. " and wonder why they were upset?

We don't really know why they were upset.

Was it because Jesus cured him on the Sabbath?

Was it because he was asked the man to break the Sabbath by picking up his bed?

Or was it because after he had been cured Jesus said "`My Father is working until now, and I Myself am working.' While it would be OK for God to work on the sabbath, it wasn't OK for a normal Jew. But if as Jesus claims he was the Son of God it would be OK for him to work on the sabbath.

But him claiming to be the Son of God must have been hard for the Pharisees to accept.

We also don't know much about the man who was cured?

Would it make any difference if we did?

What if he wasn't a very nice man? Should he have been cured?

I don't like lists of rules and regulations in Scouting, I'm happy to use the Oath and Law. But where there is a rule or regulation in place, I do feel obligated to follow it.

I see no reason why a Scout should not be allowed to carry a certain type of knife, but if a camp we are going to has a rule that states that sort of knife isn't allowed I'm OK with leaving it at home or looking for another site. If this was a rule in a camp I used a lot I would see what could be done to change it.

Eamonn.

(This message has been edited by Eamonn)

[ajmako 10]

My personal ethical perspective and background is simple. I grew up among the first generation of Americans to live without segregation--I was about 1 year old when the Civil Rights Act was signed. Most of my schooling was in a Catholic parish school. I became a Cub Scout at the age of 7, and have been registered in Scouting in one capacity or another since. I must also admit that I am a miserable failure at living by the ideals of both Scouting and Christianity, but I keep trying.

 

Rules and regulations are imposed, even in a voluntary society, to ensure the survival of the society. In a democratic society, rules and regulations are agreed upon limits on individual freedom that are meant to keep your liberty from infringing on my liberty. They establish uniform methods for doing things within the society. Their role is to make it possible for each of us to live together in the society.

 

How do we teach kids that? By first establishing a common set of understandable rules. Then by taking the kid in hand and teaching that rules are important, but far more important is the sence of community that gives force to those rules. By giving them something to do under those common rules that allows the kid to discover for himself what the rule means, why it is important, and what happens when we don't follow the rules. By understanding that kids will make mistakes--far more mistakes than the average adult, whose understanding and acceptance of the rules is far from perfect. By teaching the kid to reason, to think for himself and understand common sense.

 

There are wrong ways to accomplish this, but there is no one right way. In our small-scale voluntary society called "Scouting" we have many different ways of accomplishing the task, but all of those different ways have common elements. Those common elements boil down to a common morality, a high expectation of personal responsibility for living by that common morality, and a realistic laboratory for learning and practicing that common morality and personal responsibility.

 

Whatever differences there may be between Scouting organizations or individual Scouters are simply in how those common elements are defined, developed and used. Personally I view those differences much the same way I view differences between Christian denominations or between distinct cultures. Knowing what makes us different helps us understand the other guy, but far more important are the things we have in common. I just wish I wasn't sometimes a miserable failure at acting that way.

 

AJ

[ajmako 10]

Eamonn wrote: Maybe due to my age I'm not remembering things but 30 years ago when I first became a leader I don't remember hearing of children with ADD and ADD HA. Of course now I have and am willing to allow these children some "Slack". I now know that this is an illness.Still even if this is an illness is it an excuse for lack of respect?

 

Eamonn,

That's because it wasn't called ADD, ADD-HA, or any of the other disorders that fall under the umbrella of ADHD. Thirty years ago it was called simply Hyperactivity and only covered a small subset of those with the disorder. Before that it was called Minimal Brain Dysfunction. Before that it was called juvenile delinquency. While I don't want to hijack this thread with a discussion of ADHD, I would like to point out that ADHD is not an illness. It's a disorder, but not a disease. The distinction is rather important.

 

Regarding morals, ethics, and the role of rules, ADHD is not an excuse for not having morals, not understanding ethics, or not having a use for rules. People with ADHD certainly tend to be impulsive and this leads people to think they can't follow rules or be considerate of others. Without going into a long dissertation on the nature of the disorder, people with ADHD have the same capacity for following the rules, developing morals and ethics, as anyone else.

 

If some "slack" is needed in dealing with children with ADHD, it is simply just to understand that their brain doesn't work exactly like everyone else's. They need a little more patience maybe; sometimes maybe a firmer hand; and it takes a little more effort for them to learn personal responsibility.

 

Too often, in looking at the reason behind a person's actions, we prefer the simple answer. There has to be some mental or emotional defect to explain this behavior because "normal" people just don't act that way. Sometimes there really is a defect, but we have to be careful in blaming the defect for the behavior. A mental or emotional defect certainly can weaken a person's defences agains bad behavior, but unless the defect is so severe as to completely eliminate those defences, we cannot blame behavior on mental or emotional issues. A person who is depressed still has a sense of morality, of ethics, and can be a person of as good character as anyone else. Bad behavior--acting contrary to morals, unethically, without regard to rules--is the result of a moral or character defect or weakness.

 

AJ (again)

 

[Beavah 205]

I think maybe we (Beavah & I) might see "Kindness" in different lights? While of course I think we would agree that being cruel, mean or mean hearted is never good. I think we need a lot of information to be kind. Buying a kid an ice cream might seem like the kind thing to do, but if his parents don't for some some reason want him to have one? Maybe it's just not the right thing to do?

 

Nah, I think we see it mostly the same. I just think were obligated to reach out and get the information we need in order to be kind. Quotin a book and tellin someone to go argue with their SE might seem like the right thing to do, but maybe its not if the guy is a frustrated SM near burn-out and the SE is really tryin to help him and those like him. I think that's exactly the same as your examples, eh?

 

I see no reason why a Scout should not be allowed to carry a certain type of knife, but if a camp we are going to has a rule that states that sort of knife isn't allowed I'm OK with leaving it at home or looking for another site. If this was a rule in a camp I used a lot I would see what could be done to change it.

 

Yah, I agree with this entirely, too.

 

-----

 

As to the Pharisees & scribes of the bible, I think they really were trying to follow the rules as they knew them, and to make other people follow them too. They thought they were in the right, quoting authoritative books and insisting on obedience. That kind of obedience is very simple and very easy. It's a convenient and lazy approach, that doesn't challenge us personally to think, reflect, and do better. Follow the rules, and I'm Justified. No obligation to accept God into my heart.

 

I think thats the important lesson, eh? When the Messiah comes and says to them You brood of vipers! You whitewashed grave stones! You place burdens on others but lift not a finger to help them yourself it is an admonition to all of us to be wary of such errors. Our role is to be out on the street feeding the hungry, and welcoming the tax collector and sinner into our home. Showing kindness, helpfulness, and mercy far more than demanding obedience.

 

The kind of obedience that Jesus taught was absolute, sacrificial obedience to principle, to the will of God. Agony in the garden obedience, accepting God into our heart obedience. Even as he and his disciples challenged and condemned those who quoted administrative law, they were obedient to the will of God even unto death. I think thats what Christian tradition really means when it talks about obedience.

 

And I want my scouts to show that kind of obedience. Yah, I agree with you, too - that kind of obedience is really hard. And that kind of obedience goes hand in hand with with kindness.

 

Beavah