Do as you are told!

Laws, guidance, regulation and tradition are all different to one another but all can be challenged, although sometimes the consequences of challenge can sometimes be fatal for the challenger no matter which is being challenged.

Taking *MissAdventure's question for example what if everyone had always, and still did, give their fist child into slavery, whether this is because there has always been a law that people are legally obliged to follow, or guidance which everyone had always followed eg. for what was advised to be for the greater good or whether tradition where it would be taboo for an individual to break can all the challenged but society, community or government is such that the consequences of challenge would be the same, fatal for the challenger.

Does this mean that no challenge should ever take place or the fact that it always results in the challenger being killed or incarcerated for life means that it won't ever take place! Many people have always laid down their lives to defend what they think is right, followed their own moral compass or done it to protect those they love, especially their own children.
I would.

MissAdventure

Oh, sorry.
I meant what if everyone had always, and still did, give their first child into slavery?

I suppose that in that case I might feel differently, as I would have been taught the same rationale for the practice as others.

It was only really meant as a highly unlikely scenario to suggest that there is a point beyond which nobody would advocate blind obedience, and to stop the discussion being about the pros and cons of one law or situation . I was asked directly what I would do, so I replied, but it was never a serious question.

Oh, sorry.
I meant what if everyone had always, and still did, give their first child into slavery?

For me rules have to make sense. Most laws I am happy to abide by as they have a purpose and are there to keep people safe.
A law telling you to give up your child would be inhumane and nobody would do it except by force.

Apologies. I didn't read the post properly I was talking about Covid. I realise you were speaking generally.

Doodle What I meant to say was that we don't feel as though we're being told what to do. We're hoping the advisors have got it right and we're doing our best to follow the guidelines.

Just did what? Sorry, I don't understand your question (assuming it is to me).

What if everyone; friends, family, just did it?

MissAdventure

I was referring to the mental capacity act, deprivation of liberty legislation, and that kind of thing.

Ah. Well my point still stands - I did wonder about the 'least restrictive' bit, but I am no theologian!

Scared, not sacred!

Blossoming

*Ok then. If the advice given were to hand in your child to be sold into slavery, would you do that?*

Would you, Doodledog?

No. I would absolutely break the law on that, and not feel a pang of remorse. I would probably be sacred in case I were caught, and would be fearful for the consequences for my other loved ones, but I like to think that I would do whatever it took to keep him safe, and I sincerely hope that I would have the courage to do so.

I was referring to the mental capacity act, deprivation of liberty legislation, and that kind of thing.

GrannyGravy13

Wouldn’t give first eldest child but the second one is up for grabs

:grin; :grin:

I am pleading the fifth amendment on that one!

Ok then. If the advice given were to hand in your child to be sold into slavery, would you do that?

Would you, Doodledog?

ExD

Thank you Kate. Following advice is a much better expression.

Doesn't it depend on the context? Advice is something that can be followed or not - 'this is what I would do', 'or I suggest that you consider' is advice. There is not a moral dilemma about following it or not - it is simply advice.

When something is the law, however, and there are risks attached to not complying, people have more difficult decisions to make, which is what this thread is asking about.

And again, it is not about Covid

Wouldn’t give first eldest child but the second one is up for grabs

Thank you Kate. Following advice is a much better expression.

That's horrible, Smileless. There are numerous studies that show how difficult it can be to stand against what the majority of people around us are doing, however much we might feel that we would do so - it's quite scary.

MissAdventure, are you referring to the Ten Commandments? They are very sensible rules, but we all know how they can be used to justify all sorts of oppression and cruelty, and how many of them can be reinterpreted to suit different agendas. Thou shalt not kill, unless . . .

Your post has reminded me of the My Lai massacre by American soldiers during the Vietnam war Doodledog.

There were no enemy soldiers present at the time of the attack, all the villagers were elderly men, women of all ages and children.

It was reported after the event that there was akin to 'mass hysteria' amongst the American soldiers and everyone found there was killed. One soldier was so horrified at what he was witnessing, that rather than take part he shot himself in the foot.

People can be surprisingly sheep like though, in groups.
Safety in numbers?

I would always challenge rules which had been imposed on people where I worked, because some were not in people's best interest, and least restrictive (which, incidentally is what is stated they should be, in another, important set of rules!)

People who are living under the control of a brutal regime may find themselves complying for fear of the consequences if they don't, so they are obedient despite their moral compass telling them that what they're complying with, is wrong.

Yes, and if the consequences are likely to be that their loved ones are harmed, as is so often the case in oppressive regimes, then the moral dilemma becomes a moral maze.

All of this is why I can't come down on the side of 'just do as you are told', and believe that it is a black and white issue. It is so rarely as simple as that.

I do feel that as adults, we should at least think about why we are obeying rules, and not follow them blindly 'just because'. What we then do about it will depend on all sorts of things, but I think that people should be held responsible for what they do, even if they did it because it was the law. The obvious example here is war crimes committed by people who obeyed the orders of others. It is not a straightforward example, and is fraught with all sorts of difficulties.

Maybe there should be mitigation for those who had reason to fear for their lives if they did not comply, but the bottom line has to be that we are not given a free licence to behave badly just because we were told to do so.

It also depends on the consequences of not following the rules. Those who have blatantly disregarded the rules that have been, and are in place due the pandemic, are potentially putting their lives and the lives of others at risk.

People who are living under the control of a brutal regime may find themselves complying for fear of the consequences if they don't, so they are obedient despite their moral compass telling them that what they're complying with, is wrong.

I hope I have never followed rules which I think are detrimental to someone else..
At least I hope I haven't.

There is now a label for people like me.
I will say, though that mine would be classed as mild ?
Opposional Difiant Disorder.
Unfortunately my grandaughter has it full on.
I can still hear me asking why, why, why when given an order.

Jane10

As ever. It depends who is telling people to do whatever it is.

Yes, this is the problem, isn't it? If we take the line that everyone should do as they are told with no scope for dissent, there is always a risk that 'they' (the people in charge) are wrong, or have nefarious motives.

It is a difficult question to answer. There are times when I would go along with rules with which I didn't agree, if they were simply inconvenient, rather than (as I saw it) harmful, but I like to think that if I had been around at a time when really bad things were being done to others that I would resist. It's difficult to know how far any of us would go down this road if our own lives were at risk though.

So much of society depends on everyone doing the same thing, and complying to the same rules, that a free for all would be massively disruptive, but if we look at regimes that have imposed blatantly unfair and discriminatory practices (eg a colour bar, or a removal of rights for women) then I feel that it is a moral duty to stand up against them, (particularly for those who are not adversely affected).