- ?Lv 72 months agoFavourite answer
No, that’s just an excuse by selfish individuals who always think rules never apply to them.
- KillmousekyLv 72 months ago
They're meant to be obeyed. However, there can be exceptional circumstances in which breaking them can be justifiable morally, if not legally. Also, obsolete or unjust laws exist.
Often, it's only by the breaking of a rule that it can be examined in determined to be excessive. An example is how Henry Morgentaler "broke" the "rule" pertaining to abortion in Canada. The Supreme Court of Canada looked at the issue & found that Criminal Code S. 269 denied the constitutionally entrenched, judicially enforceable right of a woman under Charter S. 7 to "... life, liberty & the security of the person ...". It struck down the law as being repugnant to S. 52 (1) of Constitution Act 1982.
- Anonymous2 months ago
No, they're meant to be obeyed. Otherwise we wouldn't need them.Source(s): A basic clue. get one if you can.
- All hatLv 72 months ago
Not if you work for my company
- What do you think of the answers? You can sign in to give your opinion on the answer.
- 2 months ago
Depends on what I'm saving...
- Michael MLv 62 months ago
No, but it is an inevitable outcome.
- Josh AlfredLv 52 months ago
I think we can live inside the rules, conforming to them, and outside those rules, breaking them. Rules aren't meant to be broken unless you are the one breaking them.
- j153eLv 72 months ago
"Rules" is too general a set (word) to allow intelligent analysis and conclusion re your proposition.
Presumably you're referencing man-made rules of conduct.
However, "meant" (to be broken) = opposite of rule-meaning (making).
Understanding Yourself, by Mark Prophet;
The People of the Lie, by M. Scott Peck;
A Warrior's Path, by Robert Trivino.