The Application of Rules and Meta-Rules

ToothyMaw

Rules are generally thought to be swapped based on circumstance, but what if a rule has the circumstances in which it applies built into it, along with a stipulation that the actor doesn't matter? Would the application of these rules require a meta-rule selecting from a set of such rules?

For instance, if there was the rule: “don’t kill” this rule might be swapped out with “it is acceptable to kill” if someone is charging you with a knife.

However, if someone makes the rule: “don’t kill - except if it is in self-defense,” then certain circumstances are integrated and the rule has become more specific.

You might say this new, integrated rule may need to be swapped out for even more specific rules according to circumstance. I don’t think that this is necessarily the case. I would argue that if we have a set of sufficiently specific rules, and they are distinct and non-contradictory, we can just view them all as applying at once; no one claims that we must select rules from legal texts via a meta-rule to apply them - except insofar as it relates to whether or not a rule has been broken.

But this ostensibly relative meta-rule of application - determining that a law needs to be applied because it has been broken - is not relative if the actor is stipulated not to matter and the circumstances under which the rule applies is distinct from the circumstances under which all other rules apply; its application is non arbitrary and predicated on conditions that are always true, regardless of which rule is broken - namely that the rule applies in the circumstances built into it.

edit: I thought about it; legal texts are often times open to interpretation. A better reference would a set of very specific legislated laws.

ChatteringMonkey

Rules are generally thought to be swapped based on circumstance, but what if a rule has the circumstances in which it applies built into it, along with a stipulation that the actor doesn't matter? Would the application of these rules require a meta-rule selecting from a set of such rules? — ToothyMaw

If you're asking necessarily in principle, I'd say no. Why would you think so?

But off course in practice it's actually very hard, if not practically impossible, to make a set of sufficiently specific rules that are distinct and non-contradictory.

You might say this new, integrated rule may need to be swapped out for even more specific rules according to circumstance. I don’t think that this is necessarily the case. I would argue that if we have a set of sufficiently specific rules, and they are distinct and non-contradictory, we can just view them all as applying at once; no one claims that we must select rules from legal texts via a meta-rule to apply them - except insofar as it relates to whether or not a rule has been broken. — ToothyMaw

And so I think, as a matter of practicality at least, it makes perfect sense to have meta-rules. In the legal system of my country for instance we have the following meta-rules to avoid these problems :
- laws passed by higher authorities trump those passed by lower authorities.
- for laws passed at the same level of authority the specific law trumps the more general.

I thought about it; legal texts are often times open to interpretation. A better reference would a set of very specific legislated laws. — ToothyMaw

Yes usually they are not to specific and open to interpretation on purpose, because it's not really feasible to be so specific as to regulate all the minutia of all possible circumstances. That's where judges come in.

ToothyMaw

But off course in practice it's actually very hard, if not practically impossible, to make a set of sufficiently specific rules that are distinct and non-contradictory. — ChatteringMonkey

If that's true then how could moral rules follow from values at all, something you are a proponent of? Values spread across a people are contradictory and confused, and would lead to equally confused rules. Maybe some basic, distinct, non contradictory rules that support people's values could be formed and reasoned with/measured and experimented with to create more rules as needed that are distinct, non contradictory, and support people's values? Perhaps a science of morality (I have heard of such a thing but don't know where the idea originated from) would help determine if the outcomes of rules support people's values. However, I don't know how to guarantee that they would be distinct, except insofar as they don't produce the same outcomes.

And so I think, as a matter of practicality at least, it makes perfect sense to have meta-rules. In the legal system of my country for instance we have the following meta-rules to avoid these problems :
- laws passed by higher authorities trump those passed by lower authorities.
- for laws passed at the same level of authority the specific law trumps the more general. — ChatteringMonkey

I see what you mean.

ChatteringMonkey

↪ToothyMaw

If that's true then how could moral rules follow from values at all, something you are a proponent of? — ToothyMaw

Well they will follow from values, but there will be contradictions and they will overlap to some extend is the perhaps unsatisfactory answer. How you could try to solve this is weighing values against each other and determining what should take precedence, or what concessions could be made to accommodate other values.

If I may take the example of Covid again, and simplify the case as a conflict between two values, quality of life on the one hand and quantity (or duration) of life on the other. You could argue that from the value of quantity of life, rules of total social isolation and total lock-down would follow in times of a pandemic... if people follow those rules (which is not a given either) then this will save lives, thus attaining that value.

But then those extreme rules of social isolation seem to be contrary to attaining the other value of quality of live. What you need to decide in that case (usually after some societal debate) is how much weight you want to give them respectively, and what accommodation can be made to other conflicting values without harming the primary value to much. So in practice, you will for instance make wearing a mask mandatory because it doesn't harm quality of live that much, or you will close down shops but let people sport outside etc...

Maybe some basic, distinct, non contradictory rules that support people's values could be formed and reasoned with/measured and experimented with to create more rules as needed that are distinct, non contradictory, and support people's values? Perhaps a science of morality (I have heard of such a thing but don't know where the idea originated from) would help determine if the outcomes of rules support people's values. However, I don't know how to guarantee that they would be distinct, except insofar as they don't produce the same outcomes. — ToothyMaw

From what I've written above, you can probably figure that I don't think I would be easy to turn this into a science. I do think philosophers, ethicists and other scholars can and do play an important role in this process, by elucidating the process and feeding the public dialogue with expertise of various kind. But I think these interventions will be necessarily more topical, than systematic if that makes sense.

The Application of Rules and Meta-Rules

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions