<center>http://i.imgur.com/1deImEZ.jpg</center>

Have you ever held someone to their word when you know it's kind of a jerk thing to do?

For example, "You *said* you'd meet me at 8," when your friend has told you that they just aren't feeling up to it anymore. If you think about it a moment, this is nothing but a selfish justification for your own dissatisfaction. Circumstances change. People change. It'd be one thing if your friend purposefully lied, but they probably didn't. It's not really going to benefit anyone for them to force themselves to go out when they don't feel like it.

This is extensive in human reasoning. When it suits us, we say "screw the rules"; when it suits us, we say "but that's the rule." For example, some of the same people who say Edward Snowden broke the law but should be pardoned say Chelsea Manning broke the law *and therefore* should be subject to the penalties. Americans who say smoking marijuana is wrong will give it a pass when it's done in a legal state, but did marijuana itself suddenly gain or lose any quality? No, the penalty simply disappeared. That has nothing to do with right or wrong. *Rules are not an indicator of morality.* Sometimes they align with or defend morality; sometimes they oppose and corrupt it.

----

"'But human beans is squishing each other all the time,' the BFG said. 'They is shootling guns and going up in aerioplanes to drop their bombs on each other's heads every week. Human beans is always killing other human beans.'

He was right. Of course he was right and Sophie knew it. She was beginning to wonder whether humans were actually any better than giants. 'Even so,' she said, defending her own race, 'I think it's rotten that those foul giants should go off every night to eat humans. Humans have never done them any harm.'

'That is what the little piggy-wig is saying every day,' the BFG answered. 'He is saying, "I has never done any harm to the human bean so why should he be eating me?"'

'Oh dear,' Sophie said.

'The human beans is making rules to suit themselves,' the BFG went on. 'But the rules they is making do not suit the little piggy-wiggies. Am I right or left?'

'Right,' Sophie said.

'Giants is also making rules. Their rules is not suiting the human beans. Everybody is making his own rules to suit himself.'"

<center>-*The BFG* by Roald Dahl</center>

----

We apply this kind of reasoning constantly for selfish ends, and because our society is rule-based, we can get away with it -- we're not only given a pass by others, but can get away with rule-based selfish acts without feeling a speck of guilt. 

For example, imagine that you go into a cafe at 8:59. If someone inside seems surly, or if a friend says, "Let's not go, they're about to close," you can say, "But they're open until 9." Well, that's the rule, isn't it? If the person inside has plans and is hoping to get off work on time, or if they cleaned the espresso machine early because nobody was around, that's their business, their mistake. They're in the *service industry*, too, so their human desires are beneath yours as long as they're on the clock.

How selfish would this seem without "the rule" to make it OK?

<center>http://i.imgur.com/R5hVlrS.jpg</center>
<center>*I have been told I need more images so here is a nice eye feast*</center>

Maybe these two examples don't apply to you. Maybe you're the sort of person who says, "That's OK, buddy," and, "Ah, they close at 9, let's try and find another place." But like me and nearly everyone else, I'm sure you're not immune to the usage of rules as a shield or front.

There are many scenarios in which this reasoning can be applied. Here is an incomplete list of examples for you to consider in your life. You can use rule-based justification to:

----

**1. Accuse someone, try to make them do something they don't wish to do, or call their judgment ability into question simply because they changed their mind in light of new circumstances or information.**
You may be in the rule-based right when you do so, because lying is known to be bad; but this disregards two things: *caring and consideration for your fellow beings*, and the difference between lying and simply changing one's mind.

**2. Dismiss inequalities between crime and punishment by saying that the person being punished knew the law.** 
For example, unequal punishments might include someone receiving a fine for driving 5 miles over the speed limit on an open highway, someone receiving jail time for smoking marijuana (a drug now widely considered less harmful than alcohol, which is legal), someone receiving jail time for exposing government spying and civilian murder, a destructive oil pipeline being constructed across land where people live and rely on clean natural resources, etc.

This one is one tiny step away from an acknowledged [logical fallacy](https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority), "appeal to authority." Who do you think decided these laws define what is right? In a sense, laws are nothing more than authority making an "appeal to authority" argument in concrete, punishable form.

Now, if everything were just decided based on people's sentiments without rules, it might be pretty messy. Laws do serve a purpose and often they are useful and good. However, anyone living in the world today *should* be perfectly well aware that laws are just rules decided by authorities, even when nearly forced by citizen pressure; that they are not always a good indicator of what is actually right or should be done; that there are often loopholes can be exploited for wicked ends; and that some laws can damage more people than they help. That is why laws are often *changed*. If law were an indicator of what should actually be done or be allowed, then every time they change morality would change, too. They must not be used to decide what is right in any circumstance, or passively accepted in every circumstance.

**3. Inconvenience other people.**
For example, disputes between neighbors might involve one person saying, "This is on my side of the property line!" OK, but how much are you inconveniencing your neighbor with what you are doing on your side? Maybe you're in the rule-based right, but does the benefit to you outweigh the harm to your neighbor? Rules aren't going to save you from being a dick, and you shouldn't feel confident in your rightness just because you have a rule on your side.

**4. Justify limiting acts of goodness.**
I used to go door to door asking people to donate to help ban neonicotinoid pesticides, which are heavily contributing to the death of bees. One of the responses I often got was the "I'm doing my part" argument. 

"I don't use pesticides in my garden, so I'm doing my part." "My daughter is an entomologist who works on this, so I'm doing my part." "I donate to other charities, so I'm doing my part." 

This may not seem like rule-based reasoning, but it is -- it simply is based on an unspoken rule that many people abide by. The rule goes like this: everyone should contribute somehow to help with problems, but once they contribute something, they're "done." The problem with this reasoning is that the bees (or the homeless, or whatever cause you consider) don't care if you are "doing your part." If you actually care about the issue, you'll do as much as you can to help. But when you use this reasoning, you make it clear that your concern is actually assuaging your own guilt and feeling self-satisfied rather than fixing the problem.

----

<center>http://i.imgur.com/Ao2uEPI.png</center>
<center>"*No see, the book* says *you have to give me the town's next born child*"</center>
<center>"*Well by golly if that is the rule*"</center>

I feel like you get the idea. In a nutshell, when you act out of true concern for human beings, you'll bring up rules and laws only when that will somehow help other people or yourself when you are *truly* wronged. When you act out of concern for yourself (including distancing yourself from problems or removing consideration of legal wrongdoing), you'll bring up rules and laws that will somehow benefit you. Drop the selfish defense and look at how people are actually affected.

You can use rule-based justification to tell someone that they must adhere to their word for your benefit even when it makes them uncomfortable, reason that you can inconvenience people trying to wrap up their work because you have a minute on your side (on the flip side, if you work someplace, "We closed at 9," at 9:01 can be a jerk move too), justify the punishment of people who do not deserve it, cause harm and inconvenience to other people, justify not doing more to help others, etc. It does work to get people off your back a lot of the time.

But don't kid yourself that these justifications make such actions morally acceptable. Look at what would actually help the world instead of what makes you look or feel good. If you're going to act selfishly, at least own up to it instead of hiding behind "the rules." But my bet is that **if you can remove rule-based justification from your self-defense arsenal, you'll find yourself becoming a more considerate person.**

PS These are rather new thoughts for me and I will be making those efforts myself as well!

----

**Image Sources**
[preemptive death parade](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Greek_Parade_Paris_1919.jpg)
[Russia's only season](https://pixabay.com/en/russia-winter-wintry-carnival-67493/)
[gentleman holding a book](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Saint_Wolfgang_and_the_Devil.jpg)