Philosopher Barry Lam, now a professor at the University of California, endorses only one rule, and that is, “we should have fewer rules.” Even as a teenager he had defiant disposition, with an urge to do just the opposite of what he was asked to do. For instance, he studied philosophy when his family pushed him to study computer science or medicine.
In his book Fewer Rules, Better People, “he argues that the numerous rules that aim to improve our behavior often do the opposite.” He agrees that there are good reasons why rules exist, and one of them is our desire for fairness or justice. He gives example of the criminal justice system in which “if some judges are biased when deciding whether someone goes to jail pretrial or gets released” then “creating a rule that automates that decision is a way to respond to injustice.” The darker side of the rules is the mistrust. The authorities feel that people are constantly trying to cheat the system, and hence they create complex rules to counter them. As a result, people begin to find loopholes which leads to framing of some more rules. Then there are those rules which leave no scope for exercising judgment and one is only afraid of violating the rules. The suggestion is not to do away with every kind of rules but that we should create more ways for people to exercise discretion. Rules must be framed in such a way that they would keep the middle way, not assuming everyone to be immoral or everyone to be all good.
What if decision-making is turned over to Artificial Intelligence? Lam is of the opinion that human decision-making when it is properly educated will always be better than automated, even if the result may be exactly the same. According to him a world in which an individual has no human being passing judgment on them but only algorithms, could be a hollow world, writes Devon Frye. (Psychology Today, January 2025)
We all value individual freedom but we are also aware that freedom without restraints can become extremely risky. However, freedom works best within rules. It is necessary to have an ethical foundation for the right conduct. Normally, human conduct or human behavior at home, in the office, in the society, and as a citizen, requires to be regulated by certain rules or laws to ensure protection, cooperation, peace and well-being of human beings. These are manmade rules, changing over time, in order to adapt to changing circumstances. Man-made rules are made by humans adapted to the needs of a particular time and place, but imperfectly modelled after moral or natural law. According to Martin Luther King Jr., a just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law, while an unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To ensure adherence to the rules, in the family, society or nation, it is essential to drive home the importance and necessity for following them by providing the rational or moral basis, or by setting one’s own example, and not based on any external authority, which demands obedience. There must be “an internal recognition of the value” of what is required by the law. It is the authority of one’s self-discrimination so that when one sees the importance of these rules, they will naturally be inclined to follow them.
According to Lao Tzu, a ruler must impose minimum laws and rule by setting an example which people could imitate. Thus, “When people are subjected to overmuch government, the land is thrown into confusion….The greater the number of laws and enactments, the more thieves and robbers there will be. Therefore, the Sage says: ‘So long as I do nothing, the people will work out their own reformation….If only I am free from desire, the people will come naturally back to simplicity.”’ (Selections from the Upanishads and the Tao Te King, p. 118)
+++++++
This article also appeared in The Theosophical Movement. For more articles published in this excellent magazine follow this link: https://www.ultindia.org/magazines/tm.html