The Exception That Proves the Rule
This phrase is one of the most famous aphorisms in Western thought. It originates from Cicero, the Roman philosopher and statesman, and understanding it allows for an appropriate worldview when it comes to the realms of logic, law, and philosophy. In today's fast-paced, information-saturated society, this concept often gets overlooked or misapplied, leading to confusion when individuals or groups attempt to justify or explain principles that underpin laws, customs, or ideas.
Core Concept
To put today's society at shame, many people never even heard this idea. Worst, upon first hearing it, even though evident as it is, I have encountered people who recoiled in confusion at it's simple mention.
The Latin phrase Cicero employed was exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis, which translates to “the exception confirms the rule in the cases not excepted.” This means that when a specific exception is noted, the existence of a general rule is implied and applies in situations outside of that exception.
For example, on a Saturday, if you encounter a parking sign that says “No parking on Tuesdays and Thursday from 8AM to 8PM,” you know that you can park there. But why? The sign doesn't say “Parking allowed on Saturdays”. The exception to parking on specific hours of specific days implicitly confirms the rule that parking is allowed the rest of the time. The specific exception serves as proof that a general rule exists. Cicero’s insight lies in his recognition that rules are often implicit, and it is through stated exceptions that the scope of a rule becomes evident. In other terms, exceptions are used to delimit something. They don't exist in a vacuum.
This concept works both philosophically and legally. In philosophy, particularly in discussions of ethics and logic, exceptions often highlight the limits of a principle. A principle or rule applies broadly, but the exception marks the boundary where the rule does not apply. This boundary, by its very existence, reaffirms the integrity of the rule where it does apply.
Modern Incoherences
While the concept of “the exception that proves the rule” is straightforward, its misapplication, or outright neglect, leads to confusion, especially in discussions about modern ideas and policies. In many such cases, the misunderstanding or rejection of this concept causes fundamental incoherencies that prevent proper logical conclusions from being drawn.
1. The Incoherence in Social Justice Movements
A recurring theme in social justice movements is the claim that exceptions to broad societal rules—often rules related to justice, equality, or meritocracy—invalidate the rules themselves. For example, take the argument that the existence of inequalities in outcomes across different demographic groups is proof that systemic injustice or discrimination is always at play.
For instance, you'll hear plenty of people online talking about how, in today's North-American society, some people can't earn a living wage by working full-time. You'll also hear people contrast it with some millionaires who inherited their wealth, or made it through easy means (usually investments of some sorts), without working. Faced by this reality, social justice movements will use these inequalities to decry modern society as “a broken system” that needs to be repaired.
The problem is that their position accepts that North American societies work fairly for most people, leading to a contradiction and making the desire to rebuild society appear ridiculous. This is the case because of how issues are framed:
Even when working full-time, some people can't make ends meet.
Some people are rich, even without working a day in their life.
For these sentences to even begin making sense, they need to be applied to the general principle that in the large majority of cases, people in north-America who work a full-time job will manage to meet their needs.
For comparison, let's look at countries like Venezuela, where having a singular family member in America can bring more money to his family in a month than they would working in an entire year. In this case, the issue of low wages is no longer an issue of “social inequity”, as no one perceives it viable anymore to live entirely from labour in the country. To be able to make the criticisms above, you first need the privilege of living in a world where you can expect make ends meet when working a full-time job.
The cases that do not fit this criteria, both on the low-end and the high-end, are exceptions to the general rule. Even though some people want to blow these out of proportion, the fact that everyone still think of these cases as exceptions, no matter how much some people affirm it to be the norm, reaffirms that the reality of the general rule is : “do work, live well enough”.
This is not to say that nothing can or should be done for the less fortunate, simply that the reaction of wanting to tear the system down is idiotic, because justifying the reasoning by the exceptions is justifying the reasoning in spite of the general rule that everyone, even they, are acknowledging.
2. The Confusion in… That Area
On this, I will write briefly and using an analogy.
Reptiles are cold-blooded vertebrate animals. That is part of the very nature of their being. If I consider an animal and say one of theses things about it:
It is a reptile, even if it is warm-blooded (or “even if it is invertebrate”).
Even if it is cold-blooded and vertebrate, it is not a reptile.
I am most definitely affirming the general rule that reptiles are cold-blooded vertebrate animals. Otherwise it wouldn't make sense to raise the exception, just like you wouldn't say “it is as reptile even if it is cold-blooded”.
Now yes, some reptiles might have a crazy malformation and be born without a skeletal system. They probably won't live long, but the fact that such anomalies might happen reinforce the idea that a “normal” reptile is a vertebrate.
The worst part about this debacle is that the reasoning for saying that a reptile could be something other than a cold-blooded vertebrate animal is a rejection of that definition, claiming it could be more than that, broader than that, and/or that this standard comes from social norms.
But by suggesting the exception, which is justified by a rejection of the definition, they are themselves reasserting the definition that they reject. Any position that supports that idea is self-contradicting, as it must be because it is a rejection of reality.
That's all I'll say on that.
This Rule in Proper Theology
In Orthodox theology, this rule makes light of the human condition with sin as the exception to the divine order, as well as helping make sense of the balance between law and grace.
1. The Human Condition: Sin as the Exception
Humanity was created in the image of God and is meant to live in harmony with Him. Sin is an exception to the divine order, not the norm. While sin is pervasive and affects all human beings, for we are born in it after the fall, it is not the intended, original state for humanity. Instead, sin serves as an exception that highlights the divine rule—that humanity is called to live in communion with God. Even if we fall, we can be redeemed. The presence of sin underscores the goodness of the original order. The evils of this world don't negate it.
2. Law and Grace: A Harmonious Tension
Orthodox theology emphasizes the importance of both divine law and divine grace. The concept of "the exception that proves the rule" mirrors this tension. Divine law sets forth the general principles by which humans are called to live, while grace allows for exceptions through mercy and forgiveness. However, these exceptions do not invalidate the law; instead, they confirm the law's overarching purpose. By forgiving a sinner, sin does not become acceptable. Rather, The Truth, The Way and The Life are made clearer than ever to the sinner.
Conclusion
Cicero’s “exception that proves the rule” is a fundamental logical rule for understanding philosophy and theology, as well as the world itself. In everyday life, this concept helps clarify rules by outlining their boundaries through exceptions. However, the failure to apply this concept correctly leads to incoherence in modern debates, from social justice movements to other discussions, whilst applying it correctly leads to a logical worldview, which just so happens to be that of orthodox Christianity.
