<font color="blue">everyone, from my kids to adults, always have a good reason when they don't follow the rules/laws. As we get older, the reasons are more convoluted, have more 'facts' associated with them, sound more plausible, but it's all the same...It's called rationalization. </font>
Mike, interesting point.
Let me counter it, for the sake of discussion.
I have always though one rationalized things as a way to make what they want to believe true in their own minds, regardless of what the real "truth" might be. I could be wrong about this. It is just what I have believed and still believe...
But let's say there is something that is really right, correct, true, whatever you want to call it.
Like a belief that one should not steal, as an example, or pick another example, the example does not matter if one can find one that works.
Now let's say we live in a place where the rules say it is OK to steal. But we believe in the "truth" that stealing is not OK. And in the overall big picture of the planet, actually stealing is not OK. But we just live in a small area of the planet where it is OK. Living where we do, where it is OK to steal, if we choose to follow a greater "law" if you will, and decide that stealing is NOT OK, is this a rationalization, or simply a truth, that is above the law in the section of the planet where we live?
I don't know if there is any universal truth. But if there were, might it not be possible for someone to not follow the rules that he happens to find himself living under, and to be right, without rationalization being involved at all?
I guess my counter point is really just that it is not always the same...and it is not always rationalization. It depends on the situation.
OK, how's that for a rationalization??? /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif
(I really believe it though... /forums/images/graemlins/blush.gif )