the fragility of rules, and why we still follow
below is a conversation i have with chatgpt about this, which i want to record down just incase i decide to expand on this topic - sport is a form of theatre
You’re circling around a real, old, serious problem in philosophy — and the fact that it feels slippery and unsatisfying is exactly because there is no clean, final answer. Let me help you organise the confusion, not “solve” it.
I’ll break this into four layers, because right now all of them are tangled together in your head.
⸻
- Yes — laws, rules, and norms are human constructs
You’re right about this. • Laws are not facts like gravity • They are collective agreements • They exist because enough people: • believe in them • enforce them • benefit from them • fear the consequences of breaking them
If everyone stopped believing in a law tomorrow, it would stop functioning.
Your referee analogy is spot-on: • The referee has power only because everyone agrees they do • The moment players ignore them, the role collapses
This is not a bug. This is how coordination works in large groups.
⸻
- Beliefs are flawed — but coordination still matters
Here’s the key mistake your mind keeps tripping on:
“If beliefs are flawed, then laws built on beliefs are meaningless.”
That doesn’t follow.
Flawed ≠ useless.
Humans are imperfect, inconsistent, hypocritical — and still must coordinate.
Example: • Traffic lights are arbitrary • Red doesn’t “naturally” mean stop • But if we all disagree → people die
So laws are not claims of moral perfection. They are coordination tools under uncertainty.
They answer:
“Given imperfect humans, what rules minimise harm and chaos enough?”
Not:
“What is perfectly true or good?”
⸻
- Saying ≠ doing — but values are not binary
Your animal example gets at something important.
There are levels of belief expression: • Someone who says “I care about animals” and eats meat • Someone who says the same and is vegan
These are not: • belief vs no belief They are: • different thresholds of cost
Most human values are aspirational, not absolute.
If we required:
“You must live your values 100% or they are invalid”
Then: • no one has values • no moral speech is possible • no politics can exist
In practice, society treats values as: • signals of direction • not proofs of purity
Hypocrisy weakens credibility, yes But inconsistency does not erase belief.
⸻
- “Why follow laws if they’re arbitrary?”
This is the core question you’re really asking.
And the answer is uncomfortable:
You don’t follow laws because they are true. You follow them because they make large-scale life possible.
Laws persist because: • they reduce violence • they allow trust between strangers • they create predictability • they limit worst-case outcomes
Not because they are morally perfect.
When laws fail badly enough: • revolutions happen • norms shift • legality changes
That doesn’t prove laws are meaningless — It proves they are dynamic stabilisers, not eternal truths.
⸻
- Power, bribery, and “higher authority”
You’re also right here: • Money can corrupt • Power can override rules • Enforcement is never perfect
There is no higher power guaranteeing fairness.
The system works only as long as: • enough people refuse bribes • enough institutions resist capture • enough citizens still believe the rules are better than chaos
This is fragile. It always has been.
That fragility doesn’t invalidate the system — it explains why vigilance, reform, and skepticism exist.
⸻
- Why this feels unbearable to think about
Because you’re confronting this realisation:
There is no ultimate foundation. No perfectly consistent belief system. No law that escapes human flaw.
That’s not a personal failure — that’s the human condition.
Philosophy doesn’t remove this tension. It teaches you how to live inside it without lying to yourself.
⸻
One sentence that might help anchor everything
Laws are not true or false — they are tools we keep using because the alternatives are worse.
Not perfect. Not pure. Not eternal. But often necessary.