Rules and regulations are essential guardrails to prevent abuse and malpractice. Rules guarantee consistency, fairness and objectivity.

But is it through the rules alone that we will create a humane culture?

Morally corrupt rules

There are two problems to consider: first, what if the rules are morally wrong? What was disturbing about the Eichmann trial in Israel, in 1961, was that the Nazi henchman  Eichmann was not a spectacular monster but a nondescript, slightly effaced bureaucrat who believed, in committing acts of atrocity, that he was simply following orders. 

The 1961 Stanley Milgram experiment, in which participants were told to authorise the administering of electric shocks to a subject by actors looking like doctors, showed, with alarming conclusiveness, that people are capable of harming others, to the point of killing them, if told to do so by authority figures. Just as the Asch conformity experiments (where participants were placed in groups that were following a script to give wrong answers, hereby influencing the unknowing participant to follow them and also give a wrong answer) show that we buckle easily under peer pressure and rarely have the courage to stand up for what is true and right if the crowd is promoting what is wrong, 

This explains behaviours under morally corrupt governments or leadership systems where those perpetrating harm are simply following the rules and doing what they are told. It’s easy to judge those that act this way, but it isn’t easy to stand up to a crowd and even less so to break the law. Some of the great freedom fighters of history were standing up to morally defunct systems of governance, and putting themselves at risk in doing so so it is understandable that not everyone has the courage to do this.

Disingenuous interpretation of rules

The second problem is more subtle, it is a question of intent. Rules, regulations and bylaws were often created to allow certain liberties to be exercised and/or to prevent certain abuses from taking place. However, they can be used for ulterior purposes: to block someone’s freedom, to ostracise or silence, attack or harm. This is precisely why there are legal battles, because people interpret the law and in ways that are not always philanthropic to say the least. In essence, it’s not because the rules allow you to do something that you should necessarily do it: a zealously legalistic approach to leadership will quickly create a nightmarish climate of hostility where the phrase that wins the day is “the regulations say I can do this”. This explains why in some environments there is such a disparity between statutes and vision statements and what happens on the ground. Concepts like “freedom” can actually mean cultural imperialism and “transparency” a witch hunt. The truth is that if you don’t like someone, you can use the rules to hurt them.

Moral discernment

Moral discernment is needed to judge the spirit of an action, over and above its technical alignment with the rules and regulations. To give a perhaps trite example, if a tennis umpire decides to disqualify a player based on an interpretation of “unsportsmanlike behaviour”, it is technically possible for the umpire to make such a decision based on their own whims and prejudices and basically punish the player because she or he does not like him or her, using the vague idea of unsportsmanlike behaviour liberally and, therefore, abusively. In this example, the rules are being followed, but what is being done is morally wrong.

For the great 4th Century BCE Chinese philosopher Confucius, ruling by laws and punishments is ineffective because it infantilises subjects, not creating within them any agency or desire to own and solve problems. On the contrary, leaders should use the principle of ren as a guiding light: a higher moral principle based on kindness and compassion. This, for Confucius, will instil values in people an that is what is important rather than blindly following rules.

So at the end of the day, and especially in terms of our goal as educators across the world striving for a future which is not only inclusive and sustainable but humane too, it is the higher order moral imperative that should trump the miserly following of rules. Rules must be respected, but they can be interpreted, and the overarching question should be if what is being done through the rules is lifting people up or damaging them. If it’s the latter, it’s either not a good rule or it is being implemented disingenuously.

To follow the spirit of the law, to think before applying what is allowed and to always frame decisions ethically is what is needed for human flourishing. Remember that harm is not always done by caricatural evil-looking wrong doers, but on the contrary by little grey men following the rules quietly, unethically and viciously.   

And if you are a leader, next time you implement the rules in such a way that someone is being hurt, think twice. You might be doing what is technically permissible, but are you doing the right thing?