Principles v. Pragmatism
In trying to be efficient and productive, one builds up a set up principles which guide decision making. However, sometimes the principle works “in theory”, but must be compared against the practicality of that action. This creates quite the conundrum! How important is it to uphold a principle in which you know to be true when it conflicts with a desired result? How much should one bend in the breeze in the face of a gusting wind? If you allow said principles to be pushed aside for the betterment of the outcome, are you teaching others that you are weak? …or that you are the type to not uphold their principles? In this case, which is worse?
Or, one might argue…if the desired outcome defies the predetermined principle…and the outcome is in the best interest of all, is the principle actually valid, or logically sound? Is a principle still a principle if it comes with exceptions?
Well, I would have to say that there are (and need to be) certain principles in our lives that are unchanging. Afterall, the necessity, purpose or utility of a "standard" is self evident. What sense is a standard, if it is constantly raised and lowered in order to capitulate to the very weakness of the practictioners? Othertimes, it may not be the standard that needs to be adjusted. On the contrary, our understanding of the principle may be flawed. From my experience, there is one standard that remains unchanged in my life. However, as I have grown… I have come to realize that my understanding and application of this standard has grown in proportion to the background environment in which the standard operates. Also, some standards are dynamic by their very nature. At the very least, some allow dogmatic room for adjustments, as the situation dictates. In essence, this is not considered a violation of the standard.
I like your website.
Eric, interesting points. However, one might argue that the there are beneficial reasons to constantly raise or lower a standard, and that there are good reasons to do so other than to "capitulate the very weakness of the practitioner". As you said…some standards are dynamic in nature.
I actually wrote the post to express an issue i was personally dealing with….in this case, as it relates to business. A particular belief/standard i have would actually prevent me from having someone do work for my company…however one might argue that by being to attached to this standard would actually prevent some good work from being done. So i guess my question is…how do you know when the standard should be flexible, and when it should be rigid.
Thanks for commenting!!
Already tried posting this once. Guess I'll try again: To summarize:
Standards (or principles) by their very nature are meant to measure or compare. Therefore, adjusted standards defeat the very purpose and definition of that term. It also creates a conflict of interest – in terms of the accuracy of what it being measured or compared. Can you imagine a speed sign that changes with every push of the peddle? I'd hate to be the police officer in that situation. Who needs the police. On the other hand, some standards may be misconstructed, or even misapplied. It depends on the situation. Without knowing the situation, it's difficult to truly say. IMHO, the application of a standard is important.
One other point, some situations call for the standard to be applied rigidly, while others call for the standard to be applied more leniently. However, this should all be addressed in the standard.
