Rules exist for a purpose. They are designed to control or prevent a deeper underlying issue that society experiences. Take for example, the rule against the consumption of food and drinks in trains. Of course, the issue that forms the basis of the rule’s existence does not lie within the very consumption of food and beverages in the train cabin itself, but rather, the problem of litter it could potentially cause.

Which leads me to this point of realization: If there’s a better way of enforcing the principal or issue a rule guards (or guards against), then why not go for that?

For example, if people were civil and cautious (not  to spill drinks or drop crumbs, as in the case of the earlier example), then the rule is redundant, since the very issue it guards is not at any risk or is being threatened. Let’s not get too anal retentive over rules, but rather, see how our judgment lies above it, that sometimes, there is in fact a wiser and more effective way of letting things be.

Just a food for thought.

This post does not target anyone.