I saw Blücher a couple of weeks ago, a Norwegian film about the commander at Oscarsborg fortress in April 1940 when German warships entered the Oslo Fjord. He acted in the absence of orders and decided to attack the ships, which gave the government and royal family time to escape Norway. After the war, he was (shockingly to us today) reprimanded for having acted against, or in the absence of, orders.
For me, this is a reminder that the reason for rules is more important than the rules themselves.
There is a reason we have rules, and it’s usually to support individuals and society. Ideally, rules come from a life-centered intention, and they often do here in Norway. (Although they are anthropocentric and outdated in that sense.)
Sometimes, we find ourselves in situations where following the rules would go against the intention behind the rules, and other actions – the ones that break rules – are more aligned with the original intention. The commander of Oscarsborg knew this. He chose to follow the intention behind the rules, which is to protect Norway and the Norwegian people, and break rules which would have allowed the warships to reach Oslo and likely would have led to the arrest of the government and the royal family.
The movie was also about appeasement and how it often doesn’t work with bullies. If someone doesn’t play by the rules and is intent on taking other countries, appeasement doesn’t work. That is, of course, relevant today with Putin’s ambition to (re)create the Russian Empire. I am mainly a pacifist, although I also know that sometimes having strong boundaries, metaphorically and literally, and having good allies, prevents something far worse. These days, Norway seems complacent in several ways, including by allowing Russian fishing vessels (many of which are likely spies) in Norwegian harbors, not having solid drone defense, and not being prepared for the kind of messy drone-centric warfare we see in Ukraine.