Poll - Legalities

[Cody Carey]

Originally Posted by Koko Ed

But if you get hit by a car while doing so do you have the right to sue or even complain?

No, I don't have the right to sue, but that doesn't matter because I only cross the road when no cars are coming. In that instance, it was O.K. to jay walk. THERE ARE NO UNCONDITIONALLY CORRECT LAWS.

[Koko Ed]

Originally Posted by Hachiban VIII

Exactly. The rule was created to protect people. Not do them harm, or give certain people unfair advantages. It is therefore a perfectly reasonable law and should be followed.

If you want another example, take file sharing. File sharing used to be legal. But was it moral? You were essentially stealing things, which you should never do.


It all depends on how obvious the rules are. Some of the "dumb rules" I gave examples of are probably completely reasonable. They were enacted to solve a problem. Such as local kids tormenting endangered lizards in a nearby park. But to us they sound crazy.

File sharing also came with inherited risks of virus while "reputable" vendors would not do so because destroying a customer's computer would cut down return business by significant amount. There is a give and take on anything you do.

[Koko Ed]

Originally Posted by Cody C

No, I don't have the right to sue, but that doesn't matter because I only cross the road when no cars are coming. In that instance, it was O.K. to jay walk. THERE ARE NO UNCONDITIONALLY CORRECT LAWS.

I've seen people who have walked straight out into the road when cars were coming. I've heard one guy tell his friend "It's OK. He'll stop or else we'll own him."
Or you're kids will if you don't survive the impact.
There is one unconditionally correct law. It's called the law of physics.
Such as two objects cannot occupy a space At the same time.

[Cody Carey]

I'm sorry, I should have been more specific. no Governmental Law, I took for granted that nobody would take that wrong.

[Ryan Dognaux]

I think that we're debating something much bigger than breaking rules. We're essentially trying to debate the very essence of what is right and what is wrong. We're going to have some very different opinions on that and I don't think a general resolution can really be reached.

My opinion is that you should do the right thing. What you think the right thing is will be different for everyone, since again, "the right thing" could be defined as a lot of things for a lot of reasons. One thing I do try to do everyday though, even if it is small, is to "Do a Good Turn Daily." Yes, that is the Scout Slogan, and it's a pretty easy and basic thing to do. If everyone did one good thing for someone else, the world would be a pretty friendly place.

[Dan Zollman]

Are there really endangered lizards in the U.S.? I just think of lizards as things from a completely different part of the world, because I never see them here in PA...

anyway. Laws apply wherever and whenever they should (as defined by themselves and other laws). If there's some special case that warrants an exception, that will be determined by a judge--but you can still be arrested for jaywalking and you still probably won't win a lawsuit if you're hit by a car. The law isn't necessarily unconditionally correct, but it does unconditionally apply.

I admit that I'm the kind of person who would question and challenge rules or statements I'm given, but I recognize that even if a law is unreasonable it still has to be honored to "maintain order."

Back to the poll...I agree that I should never break a rule as a FIRSTer, as a member of my team, as a leader, and as a student. Breaking rules is wrong. Once in a while it happens anyway, and when I do break a rule, I usually willingly take the risk of suffering consequences. Nonetheless, it's never OK.

[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by Koko Ed

You're not serious are you?
So let's say the ramming in the loading zone for the 2005 game Triple play does not have to be justified because it's just a written rule that can be arbitrarily followed by the participants at their own discretion if they deem it stupid or unfair? Never mind that it's truest intention was to make it safe for the human player to go out and load the robot without the risk of being injured by flying robot parts due to contact.
Rules are rules. You can debate them. You can apply to have them changed but you certainly should not just ignore them because you don't agree with them. That's just irresponsible and is totally against the principles of FIRST.

I think that he's thinking on a bigger scale than FIRST. A blanket statement that all rules must be followed ignores, for example, the obvious moral dilemma encountered by the many who despised slavery, and wanted to facilitate the escape of slaves. Should they have merely lobbied to change the rules, to the exclusion of all illegal activity (e.g. participation in the Underground Railroad)? Would that have been the morally upstanding thing to do? And how were they supposed to weigh the morality of their options, when the effects of legal, peaceful lobbying on an unsympathetic government were anything but assured—what if years of protest came to nothing, and as a result of taking the strictly legal path, thousands lived those years in slavery because nobody came to their aid?

Consider that morals are not absolute and universal, except in the twisted imaginings of religious fanatics and totalitarians. While our society (as in, Western civilization) is founded upon some important principles, they are expressed with varying fervour and effect wherever you go.

Now, if we step back into the world of FIRST, rather than the world in general, I think that the practice of following rules becomes a little clearer. In life in general, we have the nebulous idea of a social contract to force us to abide by the rules. Our options for "taking our ball, and going home" are very limited in real life—we can't easily declare part of western New York to be a No-Rules Zone, and therefore exempt ourselves from society's judgment. But in FIRST, we're participating because we want to. I can't say that it's unreasonable to presume that we have given (at the very least) implied consent to be bound by the rules set forth by FIRST, and enforced by its officials. If we don't like them, and can't abide by following them, we can take our ball and go home. But doing that doesn't make for good sport. And furthermore, in FIRST, there is a reasonably reliable way to effect change, if the reasons behind it are good enough.

As for the poll? Well, unsurprisingly, I think that it's an inadequate way to summarize one of the big questions of philosophy. Especially when indiviuals' motivations for their answers (and similarly, their actions) are not simple in the slightest. One look at Kohlberg, and you'll see what I mean.

[Madison]

Without considering the morality of creating and breaking rules, I wanted to point out that there are considerable figures of history that are known and admired precisely because they broke the rules. Surely, we'd not condemn as immoral folks like Rosa Parks, Mohandas Gandhi, Samuel Adams or Martin Luther King, Jr., would we?

[Bemis]

Of course the world is flat. It is because we say it is, and that makes it true.

[Koko Ed]

Originally Posted by Bemis

Of course the world is flat. It is because we say it is, and that makes it true.

What does that have to do with the price of tea in CHina?

[Koko Ed]

Originally Posted by M. Krass

Without considering the morality of creating and breaking rules, I wanted to point out that there are considerable figures of history that are known and admired precisely because they broke the rules. Surely, we'd not condemn as immoral folks like Rosa Parks, Mohandas Gandhi, Samuel Adams or Martin Luther King, Jr., would we?

That is ture.
Without King I would never even to be able to participate in FIRST.

[Dan Zollman]

Originally Posted by M. Krass

Without considering the morality of creating and breaking rules, I wanted to point out that there are considerable figures of history that are known and admired precisely because they broke the rules. Surely, we'd not condemn as immoral folks like Rosa Parks, Mohandas Gahndi, Samuel Adams or Martin Luther King, Jr., would we?

Those people are known for using civil disobedience. I believe that Gandhi (I remember reading something about this, but I don't know what; could have been Martin Luther King Jr.) wrote that civil disobedience is only acceptable when used against unjust laws. An "unjust law" would be defined as something that takes away someone's right(s), while the people at loss don't have the voice to change the law or speak against it. Gandhi and Martin Luther King didn't fight against laws simply because they disliked them.

So I would reconsider what I originally said about that people should never challenge a law.

[Joe Matt]

To suggest breaking rules can be broken down to a poll is very narrow minded. My main problem is not if rules are ment to be broken or even if they should, but this poll. The poll is lopsided and biased. Lets discuss and not break down people and single them out.

I break some rules and I love it, not for the thrill, but for the fact it progresses what others and I know.

[Jeremiah Johnson]

Originally Posted by worldbringer

Those people are known for using civil disobedience. I believe that Gandhi (I remember reading something about this, but I don't know what; could have been Martin Luther King Jr.) wrote that civil disobedience is only acceptable when used against unjust laws.

I'm pretty sure it was Ghandi. And it applies to oppression. It comes close to the argument at hand, and could possibly be the argument at hand. In that case, it has been discussed.

[Steve W]

Originally Posted by Joe Matt

To suggest breaking rules can be broken down to a poll is very narrow minded. My main problem is not if rules are ment to be broken or even if they should, but this poll. The poll is lopsided and biased. Lets discuss and not break down people and single them out.

I break some rules and I love it, not for the thrill, but for the fact it progresses what others and I know.

We all know that we can build better robots with more motors, better pneumatics and more weight. Does this mean that it is OK to break the rules to progress these areas?