In A Theory of Morality, Kevin submitted that rules reduce morality in a given system. His argument being that cohercing someone to do (or not do) something through rules takes away their chance to do (or not do) it out of moral obligation. His actual axiom was:
Morals are the rules that we follow when there are no rules and no one is watching.
The implication is that the existence of a rule takes away the chance for moral action. I didn't buy the "there are no rules" party of his assertion. Moral people would still be acting morally, even though they happened to be following the rules. A couple of weeks later, Kevin fancied himself a modern western version of Lao Tzu when he found this quote in the Tao Te Ching:
The more prohibitions you have, the less virtuous people will be.
The more weapons you have, the less secure people will be.
The more subsidies you have, the less self-reliant people will be.
Tao te Ching. Ch 57
As I said in the original discussion, Kevin loves himself some paradox. I still don't buy it even though he found some 2600 year old dead guy that may corroborate his maxim. It's not clear whether Lau Tzu is saying that the prohibitions themselves cause virtuous people to lose their virtue, or if too much is prohibited everyone is bound to break at least one rule. I don't buy the former argument, and the latter is an argument for prudence when adding more prohibitions to make sure they reflect the morality of the society as a whole.
Anyway, the whole discussion happened a month ago, but it was brought back into my mind while reading Groklaw, a blog about legal issues in technology (and surrounding areas). The author had this assertion tacked on to the end of an entry about the current "pretexting" scandal at HP and the subsequent hearings:
That's what law is for. It's for those who have no heart or no conscience and who will do bad things if you leave it up to them. They'll do them if they think they'll be effective, no matter who gets hurt. They might even view the hurt as a plus. Humane, decent folks will likely do the right thing with or without a law, because they can feel for the other guy. They understand and empathize and won't do to others what they wouldn't like done to them. The Golden Rule, if you will. It is for the rest that societies need to establish laws, so it is clear to those without a working internal checks and balances ethics system where the acceptable line is.
Now that's something I can agree with.
Comments closed because of comment spam
Sorry Rob, I'm going to have to disagree with you there -- you can follow the law and remain unethical, and even justify it with the reasoning "well it isn't like I'm breaking the law".
A version of this topic came up yesterday while I was giving a presentation on Continuous Integration when someone asked about policies when there is a broken build. I'm against adding policies up front since the idea is to get the feedback and then "do the right thing". If there is a policy then I believe it damages the individual sense of responsibility.
So if you find things aren't working rather than coming up with a constraining policy about what should or shouldn't be done, try and come up with an enabling policy that encourages the correct behavior.
Perhaps I'm not being clear but to get a better sense of what I have in mind take a look at the "work to rule" tactic that unions can use.
Posted by: Jeffrey Fredrick at October 5, 2006 03:57 AMSee also "The Programmers Revenge".
Posted by: Kevin at October 5, 2006 07:51 AMJeff, I don't think we necessarily disagree on those points. I don't believe in over-regulation -- I agree that adding policies up front is the wrong approach. I also wasn't saying that all people who follow laws are ethical. I was saying that I don't agree with Kevin's assertion that a moral action can only happen in the absence of law regulating that action.
Coincidentally, after I posted this entry another friend of mine and I had a similar discussion. The questions he was pondering were:
Is someone really moral if they knowingly choose to break a rule?Or, isn't it in fact a moral choice to follow a rule that has been established?
I have my own thoughts on those questions, which might be a good followup entry.
Kevin, I don't know the reference
Posted by: Rob at October 5, 2006 03:20 PMWhat Kevin is talking about is that passive-aggressive behavior (I just made it sound like it's bad, though I'm Mr Passive-Aggressive :-) where if you require someone to do something, you'll get just what you asked for. For example, Mr Manager says "from now on, no more of this BS where people show up at 11 in the morning, I want everyone here from 9 to 5."
This is where Programmer's Revenge kicks in, you will get just what you asked for, people showing up at 9 and leaving at 5, but you won't get more than just that. At that point, you might as well buy some dummies and replace your programmers with those.
Posted by: Julio at October 9, 2006 06:26 PM