Rules and Values (again...)

[Beavah]

Yah, seems we're back into a recurrin' theme, eh?

 

That would be da theme where some folks equate all rules, guidelines, and program features, even those of a kids' program, as bein' moral imperatives. And others, who view goals and principles as bein' perhaps more important than individual (human) rules, or at least don't see da program features of a kids' program as bein' a moral imperative.

 

So let's have that rehash discussion over in this thread, eh? And try to keep the others focused on more specific options and consequences.

 

As a reminder for those who like da shortcut, Oak Tree's list of canonical arguments on this topic can be found here:

 

http://www.scouter.com/forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=184944#id_184944

 

Beavah

Yah, cool, I figured out how to make a link! (This message has been edited by Beavah)

[Gold Winger]

Okay, what we have here is an action by the ThrePos, The thread police.

[Beavah]

I'll start, eh? Since as a Thread Policeman, it's best to lead off bein' a good example and all, eh?

 

In da parent thread, BobWhite opines

 

The rule of thumb in a civil society is the less ethical the individual the more flexible they are with other peoples rules.

 

Yah, not sure whose rule of thumb that is.

 

What do the rest of you think of that as a rule of thumb?

 

I can't see it myself. Da person who I view to be the most ethical individual in the history of humanity fairly routinely was flexible with other people's rules, eh? Washin' hands before meals, doin' labor on the sabbath, eatin' with the "unclean", even releasin' convicted felons under the death penalty.

 

The foundin' fathers of this country I consider by and large to be a very ethical and brave lot, and to have founded the most civil society on Earth. But I reckon we all have to admit that they played pretty fast and loose with other people's rules.

 

So I say J15, and when it comes to a kids' program, J16 and some others, eh?

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[Gold Winger]

We're not talking about starting a new country here. When we signed up, we said that we'd follow the rules, if we don't like the rules, we're free to leave and start our own game.

 

Basketball coaches don't get to pick and choose which rules they'll use. Some leagues may change the rules but those changes apply to all of the teams in that league. A coach couldn't come to me and say, "Hey ref, I taught my players that they get to take two steps after stopping their dribble. So don't call travelling on them." In Scouting that would be that BSA can have different rules than Scouts Canada.

 

Rules are rules. Your personal code of ethics may obligate to break some of the rules but you must be prepared for the consequences.

[packsaddle]

I'll give it a try. Bob's rule of thumb might have been poorly worded. If he had written that unethical persons are likely to be 'flexible' with other persons' rules, I might agree. And in that case, showing that ethical persons are also 'flexible' would not be a contradiction. So the worst criticism I could offer would be that it is a weak or meaningless statement and in fact, you can probably find such 'flexibility' in a variety of persons. There IS a further problem in that some might take the rule of thumb to imply that 'flexibility' automatically connotes lack of ethics. It would not.

Of course the statement suffers from subjective personal judgements as well: what is ethical? What is 'flexible'? just two examples.

 

[fleetfootedfox]

That's an interesting list of arguments on both sides, but I think the scout law is a better list.

 

When I went to Wood Badge they made a real big deal about following the rules and being trustworthy. They didn't devote any time at all to knowing when you can ignore rules.

 

How about this quote from B-P... "Charged with the duty of teaching self-abnegation and discipline by their own practice of it, Scoutmasters must necessarily be above petty personal feeling, and must be large-minded enough to subject their own personal views to the higher policy of the whole."

 

He goes on to say, "Where a man cannot conscientiously take the line required, his one manly course is to put it straight to his Commissioner or to Headquarters, and if we cannot meet his views, then to leave the work."

[SSScout]

 

"Arrrgh... The Pirates' Code... we be thinkin' it be only guidelines, really..." Capt. Barbossa.

 

"Morality cannot be legislated, but behavior can be regulated. Judicial decrees may not change the heart, but they can restrain the heartless." Martin Luther King Jr.

 

"No turtle ever made progress but he stuck his head out" unknown.

 

 

 

[evmori]

Rule of thumb is too vague. A rule of thumb for one person may be completely opposite for another.

 

There are rules in just about everything we do. How we choose what rules to follow, not follow or bend is defined by our ethics & morals.

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

[OldGreyEagle]

It was awhile ago, I made a post in a nondescript thread, its nondescript because I can't remember it now, other wise I would post a link to it, that it seems that most scouters have parts of the program they feel are sacrosanct. Another popular poster at the time took issue with me at the term "sacrosanct" and said nothing was sacred about the program in his eyes. Later a topic came up that the poster disagreed with and said anyone who held the opposite opinion as he should not be a scouter. When I pointed this out to him, he said he indeed did hold some things sacrosanct, he just didnt realize it at the time.

 

So, what rules and guidelines are up for interpretation? The hiking merit badge says you must take 5 hikes of 10 miles and one hike of 20, so, if you round up, could a scout do a couple hikes of 7 miles and count them? I mean they are close, and the 20 miler, well he actually did 15 miles, but again its close. No? Nobody gonna buy that one? (I hope)

 

So, you need 21 merit badges for Eagle, and since Council checks them against the advancement records, the scout needs to have 21 merit badges on file. So, if the Troop sends in a few advancement reports that include merit badges that the scout didnt earn, who is to know? Besides the scout and troop that is, is that wrong? After all, he is a good kid

 

At what point with bending rules do you reach the point where you say, no, thats too important, I wont bend that one? Once you get in the habit of twisting, tweaking, massaging and otherwise cheating, where does a person stop?

 

Now, to be clear, having a youth sitting on a Board of Review is not equal to forging merit badges or fudging hike distances. But just what is the essence of the Boy Scout program that cannot be compromised, perhaps that would be a great discussion.

[Bob White]

Beavah begins with a false premise that I see the rules as moral imperatives. I do not. I see the the values of scouting that we say we believe in as the moral imperatives. These include Trustworthy and Obedient.

 

I see the obligation as a member of a community to follow the laws of the community as a moral imperative. I see the responsibility to take constructive steps to change laws I do not agree with rather than to ignore them as a matter of maturity and responsible citizenship.

 

 

[Beavah]

I was goin' to let this run for a bit before chimin' in again, but I like BobWhite's reformulation, eh?

 

I think if we treat da principles as moral imperatives, and servin' the goals of those to whom we owe allegiance in the same way, we're far closer to what I would consider an ethical person.

 

So roundin' down on MBs or whatnot as OGE suggests generally isn't acceptable, because it really doesn't accomplish the goals of the CO or, indirectly, the BSA. I'd prefer not to see it. At da same time I have to recognize that the BSA's employees at camps very frequently do exactly that, in order to meet a different goal of consumer satisfaction. Sometimes, I reckon we've just got to be on da same page of what the goals are, eh? Either way, I really wouldn't have any objection to a SM who "rounded up" on behalf of a lad who had just spent 3 months in chemotherapy, and needed a "success" in his life right then for other reasons. In fact, I might consider it unethical not to.

 

BobWhite, while I agreed with your first bit, yeh lost me again though with the ethical imperative to follow da laws of the community. Followin' the law is generally a reasonable thing, to be sure... but even the law makes quite a few distinctions about how important any individual piece of it is. Thou shalt not commit homicide bein' a bit more imperative than thou shalt always remember to feed the parkin' meter. And da actual practice of the law is rife with individual discretion and judgment, even among those charged with its enforcement. At least in a free society.

 

Human rules are ... human. Sometimes reasonable, sometimes silly, sometimes selfish or even evil. Never perfect. Makin' it an ethical imperative to always follow somethin' that's imperfect just doesn't seem sensible to me. That would be choosin' to put yourself in what Catholics used to call "the near occasion of sin." Can't speak for other traditions, but it goes against a long tradition in the Christian community and the Western World.

 

Beavah

 

[Bob White]

I see you enjoy situational ethics Beavah. You see a law or rule only applicable when it suits you. You evidently believe that the community left it to you to judge the importance of a rule and as to whether or not it applies to you or others.

I would have thought that if a law in the community was only for others that the rule makers would have simply written into it that it applies to everyone...except Beavah.

 

In agreeing to be part of a community good citizenship requires that you accept the responsibility to obey the rules of the community, or to act to change them. Simply ignoring the rules within the community is not acceptable. For Scouters to first agree to follow the rules, then claim to teach citizenship and ethical decision making to others while openly ignoring the rules of the Scouting community is dishonest.

 

They either lied to the BSA or they have lied to the scouts or both. Scout leaders are not the president of a camping club that meets once a week. We have been entrausted by parents to be a part of their childrens development. They deserve leaders that reflect the values they are teaching.

 

If someone feels they can pick and choose which rules of the community they can ignore based on their personal convenience, then perhaps accepting the responsibility of teaching ethical decision making to children is not a good choice for them.

 

 

 

 

[evmori]

I see you enjoy situational ethics Beavah. You see a law or rule only applicable when it suits you. You evidently believe that the community left it to you to judge the importance of a rule and as to whether or not it applies to you or others.

I would have thought that if a law in the community was only for others that the rule makers would have simply written into it that it applies to everyone...except Beavah.

 

Did I miss something? Where did Beavah, in this thread, state anything that would lend to this opinion post by Bob White?

[Beavah]

Yah, thanks evmori! Can't say I can figure that out either, eh? Right after I was agreein' with BobWhite on his reformulation, too. Then he hits me with R1, R5, and R3, plus his typical "lets make this a personal dig" twist, eh?

 

BobWhite, I reckon folks who start believin' that da rules of a human community are "sacrosanct" as OGE put it inevitably face the alarmin' contradiction that most of our heroes are flagrant rulebreakers. Moses, Elijah and the prophets, da Maccabees, Jesus and the 12, da early Christian martyrs, St. Francis and probably most of da saints in the Christian tradition, the nobles who ambushed King John and made him sign the Magna Carta, Martin Luther, George Washington and the American founding fathers, Harriet Tubman and the members of da Underground Railroad, Schindler, and Gandhi, and Martin Luther King. Even Thomas More, who I'm told is da patron saint of lawyers.

 

We rightly hail as heroes those who reject da notion of "sacrosanct" human law because it's naught more than a form of idolatry. Only God is sanct[us] (holy) and only He deserves sacro[um] (reverence). Therefore only Divine Law is sacrosanct.

 

Of course, we can also point to many villains who break laws, eh? Maybe the worst of us break laws, and da best of us try to perfect laws. And all da rest who just follow laws are da mediocre herd. Or I reckon it may be that da worst of the villains are those that make laws. At least for our own ends. Or maybe it's only that they're villains when they break divine laws, eh? Not human ones.

 

Anyways, as citizens of a free society, we have all kinds of mechanisms to nullify laws in particular cases, from law enforcement discretion to prosecutorial discretion to jury nullification to executive pardon to many levels of judicial review. Da only place you'll find uniform, consistently applied laws without situational discretion is in the lands of dictators and madmen. Universally applied law is unchecked and unbalanced law, eh?

 

I reckon good Scouters are ones who follow their CO's notion of good citizenship, because that's who they work for. And since most of our CO's are Christian churches, I reckon that means they admire da likes of Moses, and Jesus, and those other law-breakers, eh? I suspect most of da rest of our CO's have an admiration for Washington, and those fellow citizens on the green at Lexington. Rulebreakers and Oathbreakers all. Heroes and what da BSA calls "the best kind of citizens."

 

Da only thing that would be dishonest is if a Scouter didn't uphold his or her CO's values, or tried to pretend that da rules in a children's game were the same thing as Divine Law - sacrosanct.

 

So that would be a J10, J14, J19 back at yeh. And maybe Oak Tree will credit me with a new one or two.

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[OldGreyEagle]

So a Scoutmaster who says that in his troop the BSA uniform consists of the uniform top and jeans, then he is in league with Moses, Elijah and the prophets, da Maccabees, Jesus and the 12, da early Christian martyrs, St. Francis and probably most of da saints in the Christian tradition, the nobles who ambushed King John and made him sign the Magna Carta, Martin Luther, George Washington and the American founding fathers, Harriet Tubman and the members of da Underground Railroad, Schindler, and Gandhi, and Martin Luther King. Even Thomas More, who I'm told is da patron saint of lawyers?

 

Who knew?