Rules and Values (again...)

[OldGreyEagle]

Can "duress" be taken to be the understanding that unless I sign the paper saying I cant do X when I know I can and will and no one will stop me, that I cant buy the property so I sign it with everyone knowing what I promised isn't really a promise and is unenforcable?

[David CO]

Yes, OGE, you have the concept down, and it is silly.

[Gold Winger]

Horton would not agree.

 

 

[nolesrule]

"I would argue that unless you were under duress when you signed the papers, you have a moral and ethical obligation to abide by the rules that you agreed to even if they are unenforceable. "

 

You also have a moral and ethical obligation to defend your rights under federal, state and local laws. You cannot simply give away those rights by just signing a piece of paper that says so. That's why we have contract law and severability clauses.

[Gold Winger]

The law says that I can hold animal sacrifices in my backyard. However, that upsets my neighbor who asks me to cease. I agree, primarily to get him off my property because he smells like garlic. Do I still have an obligation to do what I said that I'd do? According to you, I don't because there's nothing that he can do. According to me, I must because I said I would.

 

I find it amusing that some of you question my suitability to be a Scouter. LOL!

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

To confuse things even further, after restrictive covenants based on race/religion were declared unenforcable in 1948, some title companies apparently tried to keep them in effect by informing buyers of the still-extant covenants in the deeds, so most people would tend to follow the restrictions anway. So the federal Justice Dept. threatened to sue title companies that informed buyers that these unenforcable covenants were in the contracts they were signing...

[Beavah]

Yah, OGE, it's one of those things, eh?

 

Most states still have laws on da books banning abortion. They haven't taken da action to repeal the laws (takes effort, might not be politic). The laws just aren't enforceable.

 

Some laws just wear out because everyone ignores 'em too, eh? Like old laws that make it illegal for a wife to cuss at her husband and whatnot. Cops and prosecutors are part of da community too, eh? They aren't goin' to enforce laws that a vast majority feel are silly or that will earn 'em a spot on da evening news for being a goof.

 

Beavah

 

[skeptic]

nolesrules:

 

While I can understand your comment about leaving things in HOA documents, you need to understand the ridiculous and expensive process, at least in California, it takes to legally change these things. Our original documents dated to the beginning, and were implemented at the start of the association. California law has constantly changed, making many parts of the governing documents unenforceable. Two years or so ago, we finally got them updated. The process took over a year of legal rewriting and ended up costing over $5000. And they still were not in effect until over sixty-four percent of the owners approved the changes; that took another 4-6 months to implement. Of course, since then, some areas of the newly rewritten ones are already unenforceable. But we can not afford to go through the process again at this time, so we just simply ignore them. Still, new owners sign that they will follow these rules.

 

Another example of why lawyers and our legal system are so often excoriated, as well as our so-called representatives.

[nolesrule]

That's why I mentioned severability clauses. That said, it'll cost a whole lot more than $5000 if you were to try to enforce something that is unenforceable.

 

An unenforceable clause in a contract has as much bearing on the parties to the contract as if it was never written into the signed document. So, for all intents and purposes, you don't have an obligation to follow it because in the end it doesn't exist as it has been superseded by a higher authority. That said, in the case of a dispute, you'll need a judge to enforce the unenforceability of the text.

 

"The law says that I can hold animal sacrifices in my backyard. However, that upsets my neighbor who asks me to cease. I agree, primarily to get him off my property because he smells like garlic. Do I still have an obligation to do what I said that I'd do? According to you, I don't because there's nothing that he can do. According to me, I must because I said I would. "

 

People can change their minds. There are ways to do that while retaining your integrity.

[hot_foot_eagle]

Backing up a bit -

 

Someone posited (and I'm paraphrasing) that it was dishonest to claim to teach ethics and then choose not to abide by the rules of the organization that they voluntarily joined (Scouting)

 

It reminds me of an issue I bumped into several years ago in YPT. Back then, the rule was that if you suspected child abuse, you MUST call the SE. Do not pass go, do not collect $200. Problem is that in my state, people in certain professions have a legal obligation to immediately report suspected child abuse to the appropriate agency (typically CPS or LE).

 

Would I have been morally bankrupt for ignoring the directive to call the SE first? I don't think so.

 

There are plenty of issues that are less black and white. Sometimes BSA rules get trumped. Sometimes the scale just barely tips away from doing things the BSA way. Either way you can't make a blanket statement that bending or breaking a particular rule is immoral, unethical, or makes one unscoutlike.

[packsaddle]

hot_foot_eagle, Yeah, we've had similar discussions during YPT. The trainer always repeats the same stuff you heard and the audience always discusses who to notify first. The police or social services people (whoever) always come out on top. No one (not even the trainer) seems to worry about the order of notification as long as the SE isn't blind-sided by something that happened days ago and just now found out about it by reading the paper or hearing it on TV.

But I don't think this is an example of a situation like Beavah was discussing originally.

 

[Beavah]

But I don't think this is an example of a situation like Beavah was discussing originally.

 

BobWhite was da original inspiration. As close as I can tell it's exactly da sort of thing he was talkin' about. Follow da BSA rules no matter what, you agreed to 'em. For that matter, it's the same thing I'm talkin' about too - da BSA rule yields to civil law and civic prudence in this case. It isn't absolute, nor is it unethical to "break" it. (J20, by the way!)

 

Respondin' to OGE who never seems to get me when I bring this stuff up, here's Beavah's partial compendium of rulebreaking.

 

Never break Divine Law.

 

It would be in error, and contrary to both Christian ethics and good citizenship, to ascribe to any human law the characteristics of divine law. Only divine law is sacrosanct. Human law, on the other hand, should be ignored or broken when it is subject to any of the following things (and probably a few more...):

 

Divine Law

Enron corporate policy says to create StarWars subcorporations and it's not clearly against civil law, but "Thou shalt not steal" trumps corporate policy even though I agreed to corporate policy

 

Superior Human Law

I am ordered to hold this person without charges in a secret prison, and by law and oath I should follow my orders, but the Constitution of the United States grants habeus corpus rights

 

Proper Jurisdiction

My employer/pastor/spouse tells me I should make a contribution to a particular political candidate and that I should vote for that candidate. Even though I may owe a moral duty of obedience to my employer/pastor/spouse in other things, I am not bound to obey in this instance because the proper jurisdiction of the lawgiver has been exceeded. Of course, Mrs. Beavah says no matter what I must obey her.

 

Common Welfare

The civil law prohibits me from serving blacks in my store. As this is contrary to the just purpose of law to serve the common welfare, I am not bound to obey.

 

Equity

The rule says that atheist youth should not be members of the BSA. George's mom died this year of cancer, and he has firmly declared that he is now an atheist and refuses to say the first part of the Scout Oath. I keep him on the troop roster anyway, because even though the membership rule is legitimate and serves the common welfare, applying it in this particular case would be contrary to natural justice.

 

Custom

Almost every troop in America violates the no driving on trips at night policy of G2SS, and has been violating that rule consistently and continuously since the rule was first promulgated. Therefore, by general custom the rule has no force.

 

The rational intent of the lawgiver.

The G2SS makes it unauthorized to point a firearm at another individual, or for any unit to make use of artillery. Jblake leads a re-enactment Venturing Crew, and they effectively ignore both provisions of G2SS because they believe that the rational intent of the G2SS prohibition is not to prevent them from participating in the principal activity for which they are chartered, but rather to ensure safety. Because their group has ensured safety, they proceed with their events as usual.

 

The degree to which it serves its own just purpose.

Barry Runnels has read about and tried to implement the New Scout Patrol and age-based patrols. He has discovered in his unit that it does not accomplish for his boys the goals he and his CO desire for building servant leadership and character. Even if NSP and age-based patrols were rules instead of program guidance, Barry would properly put in place a different patrol structure because the rules were not achieving their just purpose.

 

Service to a more important goal.

The purpose of a business is to make money. The rule says that customers should not be offered refunds except in very narrow circumstances. Your biggest customer comes in very upset with a product and demanding a refund outside of those circumstances. Even though it breaks the rule, you give him the refund because retaining the goodwill of the biggest customer better serves the primary goal of making money.

 

Unreasonable vagueness or degree of comprehensibility.

The G2SS makes it unauthorized to allow dye firearms to be pointed at another individual. No one anywhere seems to know what a dye firearm is. Lisabob allows her scouts to use squirt guns loaded with red jello (complete with red dye #5...) to blast each other, even though it might be possible that's what G2SS is making unauthorized.

 

Beavah

 

[Gold Winger]

"People can change their minds. There are ways to do that while retaining your integrity."

 

Maybe for you but not for me.

[nolesrule]

So what you're telling me is that once you have made a decision, if you later on feel you made a mistake in that decision and change your mind, there is absolutely no way you can correct it without losing integrity?

 

Am I understanding you correctly?

[Gold Winger]

Why is that so hard to understand? It is a pretty simple concept. Don't give your word unless you intend to keep it.