It bothers me how people sometimes issue rules without explaining the reasoning behind them. It may be a house rule, a moral rule or even a state law – whoever one issues it upon is assumed to understand it and follow it therefore, and when the rule isn’t followed by some, it’s assumed that it’s the people are stupid or rebellious – you know, just ’cause.
Human beings are rational creatures capable of crunching through an amazing set of problems on their own – a set that includes problems of moral and ethics, complex sciences or day-to-day incidents like a leaking tap. Perhaps, this is the rationale behind not explaining the given rules: that “they’ll figure it out” – which is disrespectful to the governed persons, at best, because now it is somehow the ruled’s fault for not following the sometimes-not-so-clear thought lines of the rulers, all the while it’s the latter who are supposed to be the more capable ones. It’s why we trust someone to lead, isn’t it? – because they’re capable of leading in a way that’s beneficial to the led.
This trust can easily be misused or even abused if it is, in fact, blind faith. Despite how clever we are, we aren’t always capable of dissecting the world on our own. Some things just don’t stick in our heads, and even if we work hard enough for them to stick, our brains have limited capacity, and learning one useful skill might very well lead us to losing another. We require those more capable in a given field to provide us with information that’s beyond our grasp to work efficiently – this is why whole institutions exist for education and training to commence.
Yet, we often persist with the unclear rules, following them blindly for the rest of our lives at times, without giving it a good, hard look and see why they exist in the first place. Why is that?
Read More