Everyday Ethics

Most people who are capable of critical thinking tend to revile the inefficiency and mindlessness of most bureaucratic institutions.  One source of this frustration stems from the blind allegiance to rule-following that bureaucracies tend to breed.  Many of us have had the unpleasant experience of being denied some reasonable request on the grounds that honoring it would be a violation of “our policy.”

Socially, this type of experience is frustrating.  Philosophically, it’s worth trying to get to the root of why this type of experience is so infuriating, and whether the results of our analysis might apply to any other areas of social discourse.  One explanation for the frustrating nature of bureaucracies is that they lead to a kind of rule-fetishism.  Our purpose here will be to articulate what rule-fetishism is, and why it is problematic for both social bureaucracies and moral judgments.

Rule-fetishism has three key features.  First, rule-fetishism requires that one zealously follow whatever rules apply to the context at hand, whether moral, social, political, or otherwise.  Second, rule-fetishism sees specific, contextual considerations as irrelevant to whether a rule applies.  Finally, rule-fetishism requires that one fail to understand why a rule applies as it does.  To be guilty of rule-fetishism, a person must zealously follow relevant rules, no matter the circumstances, and without understanding why the particular rule in question exists or applies in a given case.

Here’s an example of how this applies to bureaucratic decision-making procedures that I recently experienced.  I was trying to have a TB skin test read at the local hospital, which was not the location where I had the test administered.  When I arrived at the lab, I was told that no one in the hospital was permitted to read my test for me because it was not adminstered there.

This was a clear-cut case of bureaucratic rule-fetishism.  The hospital employees were committed to following the hospital’s policy, with no regard for relevant details, such as the fact that my doctor’s office was closed, that it was the last day my test could be read and still considered valid, and that my doctor had told me that I could have it read there.

In addition, when I questioned this policy, the hospital employees were unable to give me a legitimate reason for why they couldn’t read my test.  Any RN is qualified to read a TB test, it takes less than a minute to do so, and I was happy to pay for the service.  However, their policy is that only tests administered at their location can be read there, and they apparently saw no need to justify such a rule to anyone, including themselves.

Rule-fetishism is also problematic in the moral case, possibly even more than in the social.  It is an especially compelling concern for deontological normative theories, which claim that people have certain moral duties that apply in most, if not all cases.  Immanuel Kant’s prohibition against lying to the murderer at the front door is a great historical example of moral rule-fetishism.

In general, the concern is that if one follows moral rules zealously and absolutely, with no regard for why such rules apply, one runs the risk of making the wrong moral judgment without realizing it.  Most people think that if a murderer comes to your door and you are hiding their desired victim inside, it would be wrong to tell them that you are hiding this person, even if they asked and you were forced to lie in order to protect their potential victim.

Kant famously claimed that even in this case, it would be wrong to lie.  The prohibition against lying is to be zealously followed, and contextual considerations are irrelevant to whether the rule applies.  If one were also to follow this rule without understanding it, one would be guilty of rule-fetishism.

Not knowing why you ought to act in a particular way, but insisting that you must do so anyway is frustrating when it arises in our everyday social interactions.  But it is especially detrimental to our moral decision.  We will probably never be confronted with a murderer at our front door whose victim we are hiding, but we will undoubtedly be faced with numerous everyday moral situations where rule-fetishism might inhibit our ability to do the right thing.  It is not enough simply to follow the rules.  We must also understand why they exist, and when they do or do not apply.

About the Author

Elijah Weber is a graduate student at Bowling Green State University. He holds a Master's degree in philosophy from Colorado State University, and Bachelor’s degrees in sociology and philosophy from Chapman Univerity. He currently lives in Bowling Green, Ohio with his wife Laura, his newborn son Brandon, and his feline life-partner Monte.