Worldview Fragment: life without rules

Worldview fragment: one or more related ideas/viewpoints that can (and often do) serve as a component or flavor in a complete worldview held by some specific individual. The "fragment" term is not intended to be a subtle insult, but to accurately reflect the reality that the fragment is 1) not necessarily an actual, comprehensive worldview, and 2) could likely coexist with a variety of other fragments within some individual's worldview. A puzzle piece isn't worthless because it's a puzzle piece.

The "life without rules" worldview fragment can be summarized, if not concisely, as follows: "Living according to a set of rules or customs only produces an elaborate fantasy existence in which real humanity is all but absent." Some punchier statements in the same vein are: "rules are meant to be broken", "show me a rule and I'll show you a hypocrite", "have fun by ignoring the rules for once", "rules are for tools or dupes", "might makes right", "rules are dead so following them makes one dead".

Here are first some positive aspects to this worldview fragment:

• Life is complicated. Rules will necessarily be insufficient to cover all situations. Therefore, it's beneficial to realize that rules are not enough, but principles nevertheless enable one to confront new decisions. This is unavoidably true within Christianity. The Bible is old. It was originally written to people who lived much differently than those in the present. Christians who attempt to live out every exact word of the Bible, while having good intentions, are in my opinion taking on the unneeded burden of preserving a nonexistent past (a past with its own set of downsides). Rules are limited, so rules aren't everything.
• A central Christian doctrine is the human inability to be holy apart from God. Rules come after salvation. Once again, mere rules aren't sufficient. In fact, in Jesus' teaching He replaced the rules regulating actions with still-harder rules regulating attitudes and thoughts! By this He acknowledged the insufficiency of (those) rules.
• Speaking frankly, some rules truly are pointless and ridiculous. Judging objectively whether a rule has a good reason, as well as when an exception is called for, is a mark of maturity. Notice that saying "Rule 4c is not applicable right now because of _____" is still far different from saying "Rule 4c is never applicable because rules are never applicable".

As usual, the principal problem of this worldview fragment lies in how it has been applied, as expressed in the set of related statements above. It is prone to spreading certain inaccuracies:

• To be generally dismissive toward rules is to misunderstand the general purpose of rules, which is enhancing life. When someone knows that a particular action is dangerous or at the very least has undesirable consequences, the ethical response is to create a rule forbidding it. On the other hand, if a particular action leads to a greater good, the ethical response is to create a rule mandating it. Serving customers in the order of arrival is a good rule to promote timely, fair service all around. An alternative, such as serving whichever customer successfully tackles the others to the floor, would not be as good.
• Rules may feel like the enemy of passion or desire, because rules can stifle. The error is in not acknowledging the value of this stifling effect in producing personal freedom. Freedom is choosing what will be, so someone who always listens to desire isn't as free as he or she may claim. Merely consenting to desire at every turn is a subtle bondage in which desire is one's master. Christians (and other myriad belief systems) have recommended the discipline of fasting as a great aid in this context. Although I don't think fasting regularly is necessary, I trust those who report that fasting is invaluable from time to time.
• Moderation's "dirty little secret" is how it can increase enjoyment of desire. Indulgence without moderation sooner or later is self-defeating. Addicts of any stripe know this intimately. As movie critics point out, there is nothing as tedious as nonstop action. A little modesty goes a long way. Binges can dull experience and also fatigue the person who's binging. To take a common example, consider fire. Fire is a powerful tool for light and warmth. Too much (uncontrolled) fire is a tool for destruction.
  
• The saddest element of this worldview fragment is the tendency for its disregard for rules to ripple into a disrespect for the mental faculties connected with rules. That is, someone who subscribes to the "rules are a prison" belief is more likely to elevate the importance of his or her "gut" over rational judgment. Does anyone doubt what disasters could result? For some decisions, the difference may not matter much. Yet the compulsive rule-breaker, whose insistence on "living free by shooting from the hip" leads him or her to throw caution away, sooner or later may discover the harshness of some of reality's rules. Risks are part of life, but stupid risks should not be. Some personalities naturally err on the side of overconfidence, while some naturally err on the side of fearfulness. Neither error is worse than the other, although people with a dramatic flair will insist that taking stupid risks is better than taking no risks.

The thrill people experience from ignoring rules is really the thrill of living dangerously. "Look at me! I'm disobeying a rule. I wonder what could happen?" The thrill people experience from living "outside the lines" is really the thrill of being cut off from meaning, purpose, authority, and responsibility. This thrill speaks to the human ambition to be "like God", to be beyond good and evil. Unfortunately, it also happens to be absurd. God isn't beyond good and evil either. Moreover, life is dangerously thrilling on its own. All one must do is seek it out. The true "elaborate fantasy existence" consists of smashing or ignoring rules in order to pretend the Good needs the Bad to be interesting.