I think people are only as good as their options. People weigh the pros and cons of their decisions and if the pros outweigh the cons, then they act on their decision. I personally think the world would slip into chaos, people would be animalistic and act based on their instincts. People would do what makes them feel pleasure and avoid pain. All in all, the world is a much better place with the rules and laws that we have in place.
No matter how often people complain that the justice system is flawed and geared towards the wealthy, without the system in place the world would be a much darker place. A world without rules Essay A. Words: Category: Database Pages: 2.
Do we really need all these rules, why should I follow them and what would happen if we all ignored them? We all feel the oppressive presence of rules, both written and unwritten — it's practically a rule of life. Public spaces, organisations, dinner parties, even relationships and casual conversations are rife with regulations and red tape that seemingly are there to dictate our every move.
We rail against rules being an affront to our freedom, and argue that they're "there to be broken". But as a behavioural scientist I believe that it is not really rules, norms and customs in general that are the problem — but the unjustified ones. The tricky and important bit, perhaps, is establishing the difference between the two.
A good place to start is to imagine life in a world without rules. In Byronic moments of artistic individualism, I might dreamily think of liberating myself from them. But would this new linguistic freedom really do me any good or set my thoughts free? Some — Lewis Carroll in his poem Jabberwocky , for example — have made a success of a degree of literary anarchy.
But on the whole, breaking away from the rules of my language makes me not so much unchained as incoherent. Byron was a notorious rule breaker in his personal life, but he was also a stickler for rhyme and metre. In his poem, When We Two Parted , for example, Byron writes about forbidden love, a love that broke the rules, but does do so by precisely following some well-established poetic laws.
And many would argue it is all the more powerful for it:. Consider, too, how rules are the essence of sport, games and puzzles — even when their entire purpose is supposedly fun. Similarly, find me a football fan who hasn't at least once raged against the offside rule. Indeed, a game with no rules is no game at all. Within a short time, a game like football ends up with a huge rule book Credit: Getty Images.
Lots of the norms of everyday life perform precisely the same function as the rules of games — telling us what "moves" we can, and can't, make. The conventions of "pleases" and "thank yous" that seem so irksome to young children are indeed arbitrary — but the fact that we have some such conventions, and perhaps critically that we agree what they are, is part of what makes our social interactions run smoothly.
And rules about driving on the left or the right, stopping at red lights, queueing, not littering, picking up our dog's deposits and so on fall into the same category. They are the building blocks of a harmonious society. Of course, there has long been an appetite among some people for a less formalised society, a society without government, a world where individual freedom takes precedence: an anarchy. The trouble with anarchy, though, is that it is inherently unstable — humans continually, and spontaneously, generate new rules governing behaviour, communication and economic exchange, and they do so as rapidly as old rules are dismantled.
That rule has, quite rightly, largely been overturned. Yet it has also been replaced — not by an absence of rules, but by a different and broader set of rules governing our use of pronouns. Or let's return to the case of sport. A game may start by kicking a pig's bladder from one end of a village to another, with ill-defined teams, and potentially riotous violence.
But it ends up, after a few centuries, with a hugely complex rule book dictating every detail of the game. We even create international governing bodies to oversee them. Imagine how chaotic chess would be without its carefully defined rules Credit: Getty Images. The political economist Elinor Ostrom who shared the Noble Prize for economics in observed the same phenomenon of spontaneous rule construction when people had collectively to manage common resources such as common land, fisheries, or water for irrigation.
She found that people collectively construct rules about, say, how many cattle a person can graze, where, and when; who gets how much water, and what should be done when the resource is limited; who monitors whom, and which rules resolve disputes. These rules aren't just invented by rulers and imposed from the top down — instead, they often arise, unbidden, from the needs of mutually agreeable social and economic interactions.
The urge to overturn stifling, unjust or simply downright pointless rules is entirely justified. But without some rules — and some tendency for us to stick to them — society would slide rapidly into pandemonium. Indeed, many social scientists would see our tendency to create, stick to, and enforce rules as the very foundation of social and economic life. Our relationship with rules does seem to be unique to humans. Of course, many animals behave in highly ritualistic ways — for example, the bizarre and complex courtship dances of different species of bird of paradise — but these patterns are wired into their genes, not invented by past generations of birds.
And, while humans establish and maintain rules by punishing rule violations , chimpanzees — our closest relatives — do not. Chimps may retaliate when their food is stolen but, crucially, they don't punish food stealing in general — even if the victim is a close relative.
Life without some type of rules to control us would literally be a state of disorder. We are all human beings, and by human nature we have flaws. If these flaws are not controlled in some way, they can get out of hand and wreak havoc upon a person and the people around him. If there were no laws, people would do as they pleased. The weaker people of a society who could not survive in a completely free state would suffer and diminish because their rights would in no way be protected.
There would be no justice. If a family member were murdered, there would be no one to turn to. The government enforces laws such as not killing people. In this type of society the people who would prosper would be uncontrollable. For example the law requires that people show up for their jobs or else they are fired.
These jobs provide a basic lifestyle for us. Such things are food, transportation, and education. Without laws controlling these people they could simply not show up for work and we would be left without farmers to grow our food, city transportation worker who take us from one place to another, and education which prepares us for life. But like everything else in the world, there is a good side and a bad side.
Even in a lawless state of chaos there are a few positive aspects of this type of lifestyle. Also people would be free to make their own choices. Even though there are positives in this situation they could also be viewed from a negative angle. These people could be living a very backward and primitive lifestyle based solely on intuition. This is a bad situation because when a person relies on intuition many things may go wrong. They could miss interpret their intuition and in turn hurt someone because they think they are right.
Education teaches you to understand and control your emotions. So without an education a person would be very disorderly. The idea of a person being able to make his or her own choices would also be a positive facet that could turn out as a negative facet.
With a hour delay you will have to wait for 24 hours due to heavy workload and high demand - for free. Choose an optimal rate and be sure to get the unlimited number of samples immediately without having to wait in the waiting list.
Using our plagiarism checker for free you will receive the requested result within 3 hours directly to your email. Jump the queue with a membership plan, get unlimited samples and plagiarism results — immediately! What would life be like without laws? Get a custom sample essay written according to your requirements urgent 3h delivery guaranteed Order Now.
Federal Government. Fire Safety. Gun Control. Law Enforcement. Police Brutality. Political Science. A world without law is almost unimaginable. How would a world be if there were no laws, boundaries, or limits? Laws are needed for order; they help to keep people controlled but still able to live a life of freedom.
Laws are also necessary for the safety of citizens, without laws murder and violence cannot be contained. The balance between right and wrong is kept with laws, it helps people know what is right and learn from what is wrong. However, a world without this balance, control and safety could be dangerous and chaotic for many reasons.
Living in a world without laws would be like living in a world with no rules or boundaries, one where everyone is very independent because there are so many potential threats.