Poll - Legalities

[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.