Puzzled

[evmori]

So the uniform "rules" and YP rules hold the same weight?

[Bob White]

Good character holds the same weight, and it does not legitimize determining the importance of rules by the use of a personal yardstick. The rules are the same for everyone, and no individual is offered the opportunity to pick which ones he feels is more or less important or which can be ignored based on their personal likes and dislikes.

[acco40]

Is it a proper ethical choice to "obey the law" blindly? I say no. It depends on the law. Now, trying to teach civics and ethics, something that the Scouting program is supposed to do, with that belief is difficult.

 

Now to answer the original threads question, I'll first assume that "these rules" refers to a troop's bylaws or rules above and beyond the Scout Oath and Law. I would try and understand why the Scout felt the rule was stupid. Because it was a personal inconvenience to him? Because he thought the rule was unfair? I may also explain my thoughts on the subject. If I found that the Scout had some legitimacy, I would ask that he bring it up to the PLC. I would also make sure that if the broken rule had consequences that the Scout be prepared to accept those consequences for breaking that rule.

[evmori]

Yeah yeah good character holds the same weight. That is a given. That in no way answers the question.

 

If what you are saying is the uniform "rules" and the YP rules are of equal importance I would disagree. If someone doesn't wear their uniform properly no one will die but if someone doesn't follow a YP rule someone could die. Big difference! Sort of like punishment for crimes. The punishment is based on the crime committed. Shoplifting isn't as serious as murder therefore different consequences.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[FScouter]

It sounds like some here believe that all the rules cannot be adhered to simultaneously and we must somehow devise a method to select which will be followed and which will not. We would not allow a boy and an adult leader to sleep together in a tent. But we would allow a leader to skip the uniform? Cannot we follow both rules? Must we pick one over the other?

 

There is no need to prioritize or rank the relative importance of rules unless the intention is to skip the ones ranked low on the list. The way I look at it, the only purpose of prioritizing rules is to give oneself "moral permission" to not follow them.

 

Another approach to give yourself permission is to call the rules you dont like guidelines. Is it more ethically acceptable to violate a guideline than a rule? The speed limit is not a rule, its only a guideline, so I dont have to abide by it. The uniform rules are not really rules, theyre only guidelines, so I dont have to abide by them.

 

Another approach weve heard is that if a rule is not enforced, its OK to violate it. How ethical is that?

 

This is all so transparent. Ones character shows through all the mumbo-jumbo about wise judgment and hierarchy of importance.

[acco40]

Warning - this is somewhat off topic but I decided not to spin off this response to another thread.

 

I don't fall into the camp of "no rules but the Scout Oath and Law" but again, it may be just semantics. How a troop collects dues, meeting nights, Scout account peculiars, etc. need to be written down (if it is not written down it is not a plan I tell the boys repeatedly). However, too many "rules" does water down the importance of rules.

 

I am not an advocate of recreational drug use. However, I don't like our current judicial attitude with respect to the same. In the late 60's and early 70's drug use, specifically marijuana use, was peaking with our youth. Draconian drug laws and what was viewed as hypocrisy by many with other laws concerning alcohol, tobacco, etc. unfortunately bred an overall disrespect for the law in general. The draft, racial laws, etc. were tertiary factors too.

 

We have to be careful we don't give the perception that our "adult" rules are whimsical, inconsistent or unevenly applied in the eyes of our Scouts. One bad or "stupid" rule in the eyes of the youth may make them view all rules as suspect. I'm not advocating to kowtowing to the youth but we need to be careful. As a troop, we've agreed on a troop hat and neckerchief. About a third of the troop participated in the local communities Memorial Day parade yesterday. I suggested to my 13 yr old son that he wear his troop hat (which he does not like to wear). He groaned and did not. Upon arrival, I happened to point out that I and all of the other youth had their hats. Of course, he pointed out that many other Scouts, from other troops, did not have any head gear. My point was made and the subject was dropped. As SM and father, I was disappointed in his decision as a Scout and son but in the big picture it was in the mud with my other concerns. Rules are rules but especially when dealing with adolescent boys - whose favorite pastime seems to be with testing limits - we need to give them some space always keeping in mind our overarching goals.

[acco40]

Sorry, duplicate post.(This message has been edited by acco40)

[packsaddle]

I've had a boy sleeping in my tent on numerous occasions...my son. Oops, I suppose that should be the 'son that I serve'.

Regarding hierarchy, another real-life example. Middle-school rule violations:

1. Wearing short shorts

2. Chewing gum in class

3. Bringing a pocketknife to school

4. Possession of illegal drugs

5. Bringing a pistol to school

6. Talking out of turn in class

7. Engaging in a fist fight.

Anyone care to rank those equally?

And about setting examples...the boys are prohibited from using tobacco of any kind on official scout outings but adults are asked to use tobacco discreetly. Talk about mumbo-jumbo.

[OldGreyEagle]

Pack, could it be because youth (scouts) are legally prohibited by state laws to use tobacco products while those of age are not enjoined by the same laws? I mean look at alcohol, scouts cant use that either as it would be illegal while adults ... Dave ... my mind is going... Dave... Daisy Daisy give me your answer do...

[FScouter]

OOOH! I think I can answer this one. Lessee ...

Bringing a pistol to school ranks higher than brining a pocketknife. Right?

 

Sooo, that means it is OK to bring a pocketknife?? Or maybe that is still too high a rank. Talking out of turn in class must be a lot lower rank so that must always be OK. Right??

 

This is fun! What is the recommended way to teach this ranking system to kids? How do we make sure they rank rules in the correct order?

[Bob White]

Whether you shoplift or murder you are still a criminal.

 

You are not allowed to choose which law appeals to you personally and which does not and then ignore the ones you decide are lesser. Both are crimes.

 

Nor are you excused from the law because you are not caught. Whether you are arrested and brought to trial or not if you do either of the crimes you named you are still a criminal.

 

 

Packsaddle

 

You seemed to have missed to the point. if you know that chewing gum is not allowed and you choose to do so anyway because it pleases you personally to do so, are you now exempt from the rule?

 

Are you breaking the rule even iof you do not get caught? If you get caught and are not punished are you still breaking the rule?

 

 

 

 

 

(This message has been edited by Bob White)

[packsaddle]

Fscouter, you got two of them right. Talking out of turn is never OK because it is not fair to the group. That is the underlying ethic for that rule, as I understand it.

 

Although not all of the listed infractions are crimes, all of them can and sometimes do result in suspension. Ethical DECISIONMAKING is the part of the task that seems to be eluding people. The boys don't need us to rank those infractions. They've done that in the first few seconds after reading the rules.

The decision-making process itself is what we're supposed to work on. If we never make such a decision ourselves or discuss the process, it seems to me that absent a decision-making example set by us, the boys are more likely to create the process for themselves.

I follow the rules as I understand them. But I don't do this blindly and I discuss their merits (or lack thereof). But the principal is the one who makes the rules and whether a boy simply forgets to remove his pocketknife because he had it at the last troop meeting - or whether he consciously decided to bring it to school in order to carve on a desk, the infraction and punishment are the same. The decision-making process is the difference.

 

And Fscouter's ISS for talking out of turn might have been avoided if he had the decision-making skills to understand the ethic behind that rule.

You may now return to your class.

[evmori]

Whether you shoplift or murder you are still a criminal.

I agree. And whether you wear a uniform or not you are still a Scout if you registration is current!

 

But a person guilty of shoplifting won't get the electric chair. Why? The law that was broken is not equal to the murder law. Same with the uniform "rules" and the YP rules. They aren't equal.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[SWScouter]

A lot of us seem intent on ranking crimes. Now, I'm sure, some crimes are more heinous than others, even when the same law is broken. But, as BW says, a crime is a crime.

 

If we must talk about ranking crimes, I think it would be more appropriate to actually talk about the consequences for committing a particular crime. What is an appropriate sentence for a particular crime. There are laws that state how certain crimes are punished and the punishments vary depending on the circumstances of the crime.

 

Isn't that what many of us have really been discussing anyway. What should the consequences for not wearing scout socks with the uniform compared to the consequences of ignoring two deep leadership with SM conferences be?

 

SWScouter

[Scoutndad]

Can't help but think that this digressed into the other forum in the blink of an eye.

 

IMHO...as long as the rules are spelled out, and the youth has had a chance to review the rules or is told where the rules can be found, then we as leaders need to show the youth that regardless of prioritzation or "ranking", rules can and will be broken with consequences and that responsibility for ones own actions must be met accordingly. On the other hand, we should also mentor these same youths and answer their questions about the rules in the best possible manner so that they understand why the violating these rules will be dealt with regardless of the innocence of the act (ie forgetting to remove a pocket knife after a campout) A leader could never emphasize enough the importance of proper application of obedience to rules and the ramifications of the infractions.

 

Not sure why one would compare a uniform violation to a YP violation other than to dramatize for effect...both would be an infraction and both may be met with their due consequences.