A Principle -Governed Life

My brethren in Church and I were recently discussing the difference between being principle-directed or being rule-directed in the conduct of our lives.  It was clearly the consensus that being required to adhere to a rigid rule-directed life was much more onerous than the liberation experienced by those who knew and lived the guiding principles from which specific rules were derived. 

 

The rule-directed life of the Orthodox Jew, for example, may, as intended, provide very clear direction on specific challenges or life situations, especially if the person were living in antiquity or in an all-Orthodox community.  Of course many commandments are applicable for any age of man, whether for Jew or Gentile, such as the commandment not to kill or not to insult or harm anybody with words.   But many of the 613 identified rules or commandments in the Torah are now obsolete—e.g., those regarding slaves, animal sacrifices, etc.  They were given by God to a people who had lived under bondage and who needed the specificity of direction of rules until they had matured enough to follow a prophet's counsel and thereby make appropriate personal application to the principles from which the rule grew.

So too in George Washington's 110 'Rules of Civility and Decent Behaviour." I think that most people of maturity would understand the principle and not, today, need his rule number six: "Sleep not when others speak, sit not when others stand, speak not when you should hold your peace, walk not on when others stop."

 

For the young or immature or for situations that can brook no tolerance for deviation, rules have their place.  Sports rules are common examples in our time.

As a public school teacher I found it necessary to have a list of classroom rules that were often quite specific.  They were necessary because  I could not generally  count on the maturity level of the students to make the leap to applying the principle (e.g., the rule, “Do not touch other people or their property without their permission” would be more necessary for young children than the principle from which it derives: the so-called Golden Rule, or principle of doing unto others only what you would wish having done unto you).  The rule, in this case, automatically applied the higher principle.  But we all know that even supposedly responsible adults need rules: “Speed limit 35 m.p.h” contrasted to the more maturely understood principle of “Drive at a safe speed for the conditions.”  The principle, however, would not suffice for the need for a very specific rule such as "Drive on the right side of the road."

 

Rules, by design, offer little choice: either one obeys them or disobeys.  They are specific. They are applied equally to every individual irrespective of the motivation of the rule keeper or violator.  In that regard they are ‘fair,’ more easily enforced, and so, important, to the immature.

  

Principles, on the other hand, are more general, universal, timeless, and self-evident.  They include such things as responsibility, integrity, mutual respect, moral authority, love, the inseparability of ends and means, and the intrinsic value of life.  

If one understands and applies the larger principle, the practices begin to fall into place.

All this leads me to wondering if in all of our rule-making we might always try to make clear the principle that is at its root: the ‘why,’ not just the ‘what’ or how. 

   

Discover and apply the ‘principles of life’ to your life.  A principle-guided life is much more satisfying and growth-promoting than the alternative.