Ethics 101: To re-use or not to re-use?

[KarenH]

Originally Posted by aaeamdar

There's a difference between breaking a rule that you see as simply an inconvenience and breaking a rule that you know you shouldn't break. For example, we all know it's wrong to steal from people - massive violation of this rule would result in the anarchy you describe. But how would breaking this rule lead to anarchy?

Confused

Read all of my post. It's the ATTITUDE that leads to anarchy. When people make their own choices between what is an "inconvenience" and what they "shouldn't break," they place themselves above the law. They decide which laws they will follow. Laws become meaningless. This is the basis of anarchy.

If it's an inconvenience to follow a FIRST rule, and a mentor tells the team to ignore the rule merely because it's inconvenient, then logically what will prevent that mentor or those students from deciding it's an inconvenience to follow school rules against cheating, local laws against speeding, or state laws against shoplifting? And that therefore, it's OK to ignore those rules?

For example, some people think it's inconvenient to not have enough money, so they decide it's OK to enter someone else's house or car and take whatever they find. And they often don't think there's anything wrong with doing so, unless they get caught!

The values mentors and teachers convey to students are critical. If adult leaders give teenagers ANY justification for breaking rules, even stupid rules, many teens will take that little "permission" and run away with it. Then, when they get into trouble, they'll blame the adults who said it's OK to break the rules. If they can break one rule, why not break the other rules?

Back to the rule under discussion-- Did anyone ask for clarification of this rule in the Q&A?