Philosophy Forum

Read Topic
Reply

Rules

Get Email Updates • Email this Topic • Print this Page

The issue with the thread closing got me thinking.

First off, this is not meant to be a discussion of whether our dear moderators were correct in that instance. I am only using the scenario to exemplify the question I am posing. There were circumstances to that beyond this issue, and I want to assure Justin and all other moderators that the last thing I want to do is second guess them, as I think they handle their duties quite well.

Now, that thread was started as a joke about one of our posters. There is a rule on this forum that threads about posters are not allowed. This rule has been decreed in order to protect posters from being ganged up on, called out, or attacked. It makes sense, ad hominem isn't allowed in philosophy in general, why should it in a philosophy forum?

However, the thread in question was plainly a light-hearted joke with no ill will intended or taken. There was no attempt to slander the poster, rather just to spread a little humor, but it quite plainly violated the rule.

Again, this is not a question on whether the ruling was correct, or even whether the rule itself is correct.

The question is this: In enforcing and following rules, is it the letter of the rule that we should be adhering to, or is it the spirit?

What do you think?

@Mr Fight the Power,

I think in like cases it must be the letter, the violation of the individual is an edgy issue, easy to cross the line.

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

I think in like cases it must be the letter, the violation of the individual is an edgy issue, easy to cross the line.

So it is a case by case issue with you? What rules should there be to govern the enforcement of the rules?

Careful, the anarchist in me is coming out!

@Mr Fight the Power,

OOohhh... very good question, and a potentially-sticky one indeed.

In the context that I understand it:[INDENT]Following The Letter: Following a rule verbatim as its written without regard to circumstances that surround it. "X Is wrong" doesn't specify in what situations such a thing might be wrong, just that it is. This is what I understand to be the Letter of the Law. The problem with this is that it denies the ethics of the situation; which is spurious at best. In so doing, we blind ourselves to all but the letter.
[/INDENT][INDENT]Following The Spirit: Is - to me - adhering to a rule only insomuch as the intended effect, outcome or damage if not following the rule is maintained. The problem with this is that we don't always know the effects of 'breaking' this rule, nor can we always be fully aware of what the intended effects or moviations behind the rule are. So when we try to follow the spirit of a law, we do so at our own peril.
[/INDENT]Which we should follow, to my way of thinking, is the letter unless 1) We have a solid grasp on the meaning and intended effect of the law -or- 2) A moral imperative prevents us from doing so (i.e., a worse effect or damage is more likely to result) and the conscience says, "No, this is wrong". Now, what such a moral imperative to prevent law-following might be is certainly open to debate.

Thanks

@Mr Fight the Power,

Mr. Fight the Power wrote:

So it is a case by case issue with you? What rules should there be to govern the enforcement of the rules?
Careful, the anarchist in me is coming out!

Mr Fight the Power, Smile

Did you say, anti-Christ!--lol!! Discussion of ones personality should not come into philosophical discussion, even the light hearted approach can turn sour very quickly. It is not case by case, it is any post which violates this rule. It is, non-negotiable.

@Khethil,

Its not the intention its the possibilities and by that alone Justin was right...it could have degenerated at any time and i would hate to have been apart of that...

@Mr Fight the Power,

Mr. Fight the Power;31418 wrote:

The question is this: In enforcing and following rules, is it the letter of the rule that we should be adhering to, or is it the spirit?

'Either/or'?
Why not both?
The 'letter' clearly defines a legal offence.
The 'spirit' determines the necessary component (though commonly hushed by those in power) of 'intent'.
Both, together, measured and weighed in order to determine an amount of legal responsibility!
One apparent 'reason' that one might favor the 'letter' approach alone, is that it requires no 'critical thought', which actually takes energy!

"Low energy may be a symptom of clinical depression, it may also be a symptom of fatigue from the extra energy required for alternative thinking";
-Entrainment & The Psychology of Alternative Thinking

I suppose, 'alternative' to the mundane 'deiseling' babble of our "hamburger?cheeseburger?hamburger?cheese...?" quality of 'thought'.

@Mr Fight the Power,

"However, the thread in question was plainly a light-hearted joke with no ill will intended or taken. There was no attempt to slander the poster, rather just to spread a little humor, but it quite plainly violated the rule."

In an on-line community, what might be construed as light-hearted humour could also be construed just as easily as something entirely different, by either some of the participants or just a casual reader unfamiliar with the people involved or their particular brand of humour. This is especially true when directed at another Member, or when another Member is mentioned. [There is a very good reason that in the House of Commons, no one is mentioned by name, but "the previous speaker" or "the Member from Newcastle" is always used.]

Most of us have seen flame wars erupt for no good reason based on mis-reading of a hasty comment, and have seen how they harm the community as a whole even if not always out in the open. Hence such a rule, widespread throughout internet forums.

One would like to think that rules could be subject to some latitude (letter vs. spirit), but is this beneficial to the community at large or even at all practical?
For then what we have are often arbitrary decisions based on textual interpretations. If we cannot agree on what Kant wrote about the Transcendental Aesthetic with Kant's text in front of us, how much less universally evident is the intent or content of a forum post made with much less care?

Following the letter of rules at least eliminates some of the subjective decisions, and it becomes one of does X violate the rule or not- - -Not whether it violates one interpretation of the "spirit" of the rule that must be justified and argued over and over.

@Khethil,

Khethil wrote:

OOohhh... very good question, and a potentially-sticky one indeed.

In the context that I understand it:[INDENT]Following The Letter: Following a rule verbatim as its written without regard to circumstances that surround it. "X Is wrong" doesn't specify in what situations such a thing might be wrong, just that it is. This is what I understand to be the Letter of the Law. The problem with this is that it denies the ethics of the situation; which is spurious at best. In so doing, we blind ourselves to all but the letter.
[/INDENT][INDENT]Following The Spirit: Is - to me - adhering to a rule only insomuch as the intended effect, outcome or damage if not following the rule is maintained. The problem with this is that we don't always know the effects of 'breaking' this rule, nor can we always be fully aware of what the intended effects or moviations behind the rule are. So when we try to follow the spirit of a law, we do so at our own peril.
[/INDENT]Which we should follow, to my way of thinking, is the letter unless 1) We have a solid grasp on the meaning and intended effect of the law -or- 2) A moral imperative prevents us from doing so (i.e., a worse effect or damage is more likely to result) and the conscience says, "No, this is wrong". Now, what such a moral imperative to prevent law-following might be is certainly open to debate.

Thanks

Excellent, Khethil. Very well framed.

I agree with you completely on the last paragraph. To me though, that invalidates almost all rules except for where they serve the moral intent.

To what end does a incomprehensible law serve? Hopefully we have a solid grasp on the meaning and intended effect of a rule, and if we do not, hopefully we will find ourselves in a position to amend it so that we do understand it.

Also, for your problem with following the spirit of the rule, I hardly think that is a knock on breaking the law, as we are equally blind to the effects of following the law.

When you stated that following the letter of the law "denies the ethics of the situation", you hit the nail on the head. No rule or law is justified in and of itself, and to appeal to a law as if it does is to invalidate the intent upon which it is based.

Quote:

Mr Fight the Power,

Did you say, anti-Christ!--lol!! Discussion of ones personality should not come into philosophical discussion, even the light hearted approach can turn sour very quickly. It is not case by case, it is any post which violates this rule. It is, non-negotiable.

As I said, I will not allow my views to be misconstrued as a critique of the actions taken within this scenario, so I cannot respond to this unless it is reworded.

There has to be a more general formulation, for as I said, even if you argue that it be taken case by case, there must be a rule to govern the application of the rule.

Quote:

Its not the intention its the possibilities and by that alone Justin was right...it could have degenerated at any time and i would hate to have been apart of that...

See above. I have no argument with this statement.

Quote:

'Either/or'?
Why not both?
The 'letter' clearly defines a legal offence.
The 'spirit' determines the necessary component (though commonly hushed by those in power) of 'intent'.
Both, together, measured and weighed in order to determine an amount of legal responsibility!
One apparent 'reason' that one might favor the 'letter' approach alone, is that it requires no 'critical thought', which actually takes energy!

I do not know why you attempt to include the letter of the rule in this one.

Quote:

One would like to think that rules could be subject to some latitude (letter vs. spirit), but is this beneficial to the community at large or even at all practical?
For then what we have are often arbitrary decisions based on textual interpretations. If we cannot agree on what Kant wrote about the Transcendental Aesthetic with Kant's text in front of us, how much less universally evident is the intent or content of a forum post made with much less care?

Following the letter of rules at least eliminates some of the subjective decisions, and it becomes one of does X violate the rule or not- - -Not whether it violates one interpretation of the "spirit" of the rule that must be justified and argued over and over.

This certainly makes sense. Consistency when fairness is difficult.

@Mr Fight the Power,

I am a rational anarchist and only abide by the rules which produce a state in which I can progress healthily in the society which I currently live.

Rules are generally created over resources. In every sense, rules are created to maintain a certain class of living which does not strain resources (natural or human) too much in order to allow for ease and comfort. By nature, we create these rules and these rules are present in nature. It is within us to maintain a balance. Rules help this. But eventually, the rules must be re-assessed seeing as things contantly change.

@Mr Fight the Power,

Mr. Fight the Power;31418 wrote:

The question is this: In enforcing and following rules, is it the letter of the rule that we should be adhering to, or is it the spirit?

What's clear is that one should never be allowed to hide behind the letter of a rule to justify violating its spirit.

Read Topic
Reply

Philosophy Forum

Rules

Quick Links

My Account

able2know