"Ask for forgiveness, not for permission" who said this?

[ILiveInFlipFlops]

Hmmm...I'm not so sure. That presumes the rule one is choosing to break is a worthwhile or rational or good rule, a presumption I just don't automatically have.

 

This. It also presumes that one is breaking a rule, when often there's simply a difference in opinion or a someone else's preferred way of doing things. 

[KungFuPanda]

I use this when I take down a tree in my yard. I simply do not want to do the paperwork and our hsa has no teeth at all unless you're trying to sell. I just have the tree and stump removed. If I ask they might say no and then there's a paper trail. I'm not about that life.

[8circles]

Hmmm...I'm not so sure. That presumes the rule one is choosing to break is a worthwhile or rational or good rule, a presumption I just don't automatically have.

 

Maybe I haven't had enough coffee yet to understand this right.

 

If one is using this saying to do the right thing, to make the right decision, to get something done instead of stalemate...then the "rule" they are breaking wouldn't be a worthwhile/rational/good rule.  No forgiveness necessary then.  Even if someone is mad afterwards, still no forgiveness necessary.  I have done this before and made a boss mad.  They could "forgive" me or not, makes no difference.  I wasn't fired but I wouldn't have asked for forgiveness unless I actually thought I had done the wrong thing.  I can understand. I guess, using it in this way, but I still think it doesn't really apply.  It just sounds catchy so people keep using it.

 

If one is using this saying to justify breaking a worthwhile/rational/good rule, then they are probably doing something they shouldn't do & justfying it in this way is wrong.  This is how I mostly see it being used.  I hate it.

 

What am I missing? 

[SproutMamaK]

I've never heard this phrase used in a positive way... it's always been by people who knew they shouldn't be doing something, did it anyway, and used this phrase to shrug off culpability later (think teenager sneaking out of the house to go to a drunken frat party type of behaviour). I had no idea people used it as actual advice as though it were a good thing! I can see that being the case in many of the situations you guys have described, and it certainly does seem to make sense at times. I've just never heard it actually applied that way in real life. I'm a little taken off-guard that there's a positive mentality behind this phrase that I was totally unaware of! Huh, I guess you learn something new every day.

[ILiveInFlipFlops]

If one is using this saying to do the right thing, to make the right decision, to get something done instead of stalemate...then the "rule" they are breaking wouldn't be a worthwhile/rational/good rule.  No forgiveness necessary then.  Even if someone is mad afterwards, still no forgiveness necessary.  I have done this before and made a boss mad.  They could "forgive" me or not, makes no difference.  I wasn't fired but I wouldn't have asked for forgiveness unless I actually thought I had done the wrong thing.  I can understand. I guess, using it in this way, but I still think it doesn't really apply.  It just sounds catchy so people keep using it.

 

This is how the vast majority of people apply this quote. Either there's no hard-and-fast rule in place, but someone will be annoyed at you for doing what you want or feel you need to do, or there's a rule, but it's a bad one or it's preventing people from doing what's right or expedient in some given situation. 

 

Someone said this quote to me just a few days ago when I said I wanted to have a spring bonfire in my yard but I knew my Fussy Neighbor would be annoyed. Not because it affected him in any way, just because he's fussy. There's no law against fire pits or anything like that, so it was just me knowing that he would be annoyed, so I was hesitant to do it. A friend said that it was better to ask forgiveness than permission because if I asked him in advance, he'd tell me he didn't want me to do it (opinion), whereas if I just went and did it, he'd probably complain the next day and I could just apologize and say I hoped it didn't bother him too much. 

 

In your work example, no one's on their knees begging for actual forgiveness. They're just accepting that someone will be annoyed with them and that that's the consequence of taking care of business, whereas if they'd asked, they'd have been told no flat out, and that would have actually prevented them from doing what needed to be done. 

 

Of course people do use it as justification for doing things that they REALLY shouldn't be doing, but those people will just do that stuff anyway and use something else as justification. I think most people consider the phrase as a way to navigate moral gray areas, where the "right way" is pretty subjective. 

Edited March 23, 2016 by ILiveInFlipFlops

[Valley Girl]

I've mostly heard it used in the context of Person A wanting to do what he or she wants to do but knowing that the idea would not receive Person B's support. It was easier for Person A to just go ahead an do it and deal with the fallout later.

[KrissiK]

Been around for decades.

 

I hate it. It's the ultimate excuse to do the wrong thing.

My mom says it. Although not in the context of doing the wrong thing. More in the context of avoiding obstacles due to red tape or endless committees or whatever you have to go through to get permission to do something.

 

I also liked the explanation someone gave above of not having a hard and fast rule about something, but if you ask there's always the chance of being told "no". So, if you just do it, you can apologize if someone doesn't like it.

Edited March 23, 2016 by KrissiK

[Scarlett]

I think this saying is being over thought. I don't use it for moral issues. The last time I used it was when it was thanksgiving weekend. The state office building I clean.....I wanted to clean it Wednesday night bcause we were going out of town. I didn't know for sure if they were opened on Friday....but I made the decision to not ask...and I said "better to ask for foregiveness than permission".

 

No a big deal. I don't think it means as much as many of you might think. I've never even heard it used for a serious right or wrong situation.

[brehon]

Maybe I haven't had enough coffee yet to understand this right.

 

If one is using this saying to do the right thing, to make the right decision, to get something done instead of stalemate...then the "rule" they are breaking wouldn't be a worthwhile/rational/good rule. No forgiveness necessary then. Even if someone is mad afterwards, still no forgiveness necessary. I have done this before and made a boss mad. They could "forgive" me or not, makes no difference. I wasn't fired but I wouldn't have asked for forgiveness unless I actually thought I had done the wrong thing. I can understand. I guess, using it in this way, but I still think it doesn't really apply. It just sounds catchy so people keep using it.

 

If one is using this saying to justify breaking a worthwhile/rational/good rule, then they are probably doing something they shouldn't do & justfying it in this way is wrong. This is how I mostly see it being used. I hate it.

 

What am I missing?

I really do think you're being too literal with this. No one is literally begging forgiveness for breaking a rule. What the saying means to me, and many others I think, is that when there is an obstacle preventing you from doing something, especially if that thing is good or right, then it is better to do whatever "it" is and take any consequences later.

 

And there are many, many rules in business, government, HOAs, life that are simply unreasonable and, quite often, contradict other rules. What is one to do then? Judge the situation, weigh the potential consequences, make a decision, act, and deal with whatever comes of your decision.

 

How right or wrong an individual rule may be has nothing to do with how someone (i.e., a boss) may react when said rule is broken. Also, many times in life there is no rule governing a situation. There can be, however, people whose sole joy in life is saying no. So, I bypass those people. Again, I'm not going to literally beg forgiveness if someone doesn't like what I do. I'm simply not giving them the chance to say no.

 

I have never heard the expression used to justify wrong behavior.

[purplejackmama]

Been around for decades.

 

I hate it. It's the ultimate excuse to do the wrong thing.

Hmm, maybe. But I disagree. I've used it before when I knew what the right thing was but there was too much red tape, bureaucracy, etc to get an answer. So we forged ahead!

[LucyStoner]

Been around for decades.

 

I hate it. It's the ultimate excuse to do the wrong thing.

I dunno. It has its time and place. When you work in a group where the leader is overly controlling about small ideas and suggestions or the decisions fall to a dysfunctional committee, it really does often work out best to just do it, let them see how great it is and dispense with the slow down of asking for permission.

[8circles]

I really do think you're being too literal with this. No one is literally begging forgiveness for breaking a rule. What the saying means to me, and many others I think, is that when there is an obstacle preventing you from doing something, especially if that thing is good or right, then it is better to do whatever "it" is and take any consequences later.

 

And there are many, many rules in business, government, HOAs, life that are simply unreasonable and, quite often, contradict other rules. What is one to do then? Judge the situation, weigh the potential consequences, make a decision, act, and deal with whatever comes of your decision.

 

How right or wrong an individual rule may be has nothing to do with how someone (i.e., a boss) may react when said rule is broken. Also, many times in life there is no rule governing a situation. There can be, however, people whose sole joy in life is saying no. So, I bypass those people. Again, I'm not going to literally beg forgiveness if someone doesn't like what I do. I'm simply not giving them the chance to say no.

 

I have never heard the expression used to justify wrong behavior.

 

I understand what you're saying but I don't think it's a matter of taking it too literally - I just don't think it makes actual sense in this context.  It just sounds catchy.

[ElizabethB]

The phrase is used in the Air Force all the time, and in a positive manner.

 

There are billions of nitpicky rules and sometimes the interpretation of them can be overboard on the side of doing nothing when the mission really does need to be accomplished, and a stict following or overinterpreting of the rules will result in doing nothing.

 

So, there are times when it is best to just do what is right overall even if you suspect you might be breaking one of the billion small rules that are made by the beurocracy. A good boss will back you up and ignore the violation or slap you on the wrist. You do have to be willing to take any punishment that may occur and that factors into people's decision matrix. But, if you put a request in before hand, it has to go through the beurocracy and people err on the side of doing nothing and over following the rules and overinterpreting them. It is insane how many rules and regulations there are about everything in any large beuracracy, and people's interpretations of the rules can vary.

Edited March 23, 2016 by ElizabethB

[heartlikealion]

I'd like to think there are a few contexts in which it is appropriate. Like, if you are protesting something... and you don't know if you need a permit to stand outside this place and object but you feel a moral obligation to act now. Or holding a yard sale. I don't know, something where there's red tape and what you are doing is actually not evil but might not receive approval. I'm not saying the yard sale is the "right thing" but it sounds like one of those things that could fall in a gray area where depending on where you live it's ok or not.

 

I used to sport a bumper sticker that said Well-Behaved Women Rarely Make History. Sometimes doing the right thing does not mean following the rules. Like let's say someone was in danger and you had to temporarily park by a red curb to get to them. You really gonna ask permission? No, but you might ask for forgiveness if someone comes to ticket you.

[creekland]

I'd like to think there are a few contexts in which it is appropriate. Like, if you are protesting something... and you don't know if you need a permit to stand outside this place and object but you feel a moral obligation to act now. Or holding a yard sale. I don't know, something where there's red tape and what you are doing is actually not evil but might not receive approval. I'm not saying the yard sale is the "right thing" but it sounds like one of those things that could fall in a gray area where depending on where you live it's ok or not.

 

I used to sport a bumper sticker that said Well-Behaved Women Rarely Make History. Sometimes doing the right thing does not mean following the rules. Like let's say someone was in danger and you had to temporarily park by a red curb to get to them. You really gonna ask permission? No, but you might ask for forgiveness if someone comes to ticket you.

 

I agree with you in general - esp your last paragraph, but folks do need to think carefully before making some of the decisions in your first paragraph as the saying is not always true.

 

Where we used to live, getting a permit for a yard sale cost $2.  Getting fined for not having one was $15 and they patrolled the area all the time.  Not knowing one needed a permit was not an excuse.

 

Hubby deals with many things Civil Engineering and a bit of that is land development and water quality.  Way too many people decide they can just do things with their land.  That used to be true in many places.  It's usually not now.  They can get HUGE fines and even have to tear down/restore what they've done (at their expense) if they aren't careful.

 

For many things in life, checking out the specifics is worthwhile.

 

Some gray areas or "known" areas (like the AF mentioned above) are exceptions.

 

In all situations, it's worth it to think about what one is doing and possibly run it past someone with more knowledge if possible.

[DawnM]

I have a friend who seems to live by this.  She really thinks the rules do not apply to her or her family.  And she doesn't understand why sometimes there isn't forgiveness for the things they think they can get away with.  

 

She is now facing some serious consequences for not following the rules, but alas, she blames the people in charge, not her lack of following the rules.

 

Sigh.

[Guest]

Maybe I haven't had enough coffee yet to understand this right.

 

If one is using this saying to do the right thing, to make the right decision, to get something done instead of stalemate...then the "rule" they are breaking wouldn't be a worthwhile/rational/good rule. No forgiveness necessary then. Even if someone is mad afterwards, still no forgiveness necessary. I have done this before and made a boss mad. They could "forgive" me or not, makes no difference. I wasn't fired but I wouldn't have asked for forgiveness unless I actually thought I had done the wrong thing. I can understand. I guess, using it in this way, but I still think it doesn't really apply. It just sounds catchy so people keep using it.

 

If one is using this saying to justify breaking a worthwhile/rational/good rule, then they are probably doing something they shouldn't do & justfying it in this way is wrong. This is how I mostly see it being used. I hate it.

 

What am I missing?

I think you're looking at forgiveness too literally. It's not going-to-confessional type asking for forgiveness. It's a situation where you knew the person/people involved might complain about how you didn't go through the riht chanels or whatever, but the choice was not inherantly bad or wrong. It was just different from what the authority figure might do or expect.

 

Sorry to keep using DH's business as an example, but I also just had business cards made with the new logo. He did not see the design of the cards ahead of time. So he texted me today, saying they arrived and look good but I should have used grey and maroon and white, not black, red and white because those are his colors and blah, blah, blah. I just texted back "You're welcome!" ;) The truth is, he doesn't like change, but if I ask his approval on every tiny thing, we will never freakin get anywhere. So for marketing stuff, I don't wait around for him to decide. I am moving ahead with things because we can't sit here watching the world pass by. :) So, he will probably bring up the business cards again. I will say, "I'm sorry it's not exactly what you imagined. I'll do the next batch differently." Asking for forgiveness, but not so terribly sorry.

[teachermom2834]

I see this in homeschool activities. A mom will sign up a kid too young/old/whatever for an activity or class without asking anyone. Had the mom asked she would say be told "no". But once the kid is signed up, money exchanged, attended a class, etc it is hard for the leader to kick the kid out.

 

This nearly always works. Make me crazy that people that do this usually get their way.

[HS Mom in NC]

Been around for decades.

 

I hate it.  It's the ultimate excuse to do the wrong thing.

 

Not necessarily. You misunderstand the intention of that phrase.  Some people abuse and misuse it, but it's perfectly appropriate in certain time sensitive situations.

 

A few years ago a friend was a eye witness to the perfect situation for that phrase.  A hiker in the part of the Grand Canyon run by the resident tribe (not the usual park most people go to) had the required permission from the tribe to hike to the established campground.  This is the 1o mile path the US mail delivers by mule train and leads through the most remote US town and then 2.5 more miles to the campground. The only other way to the town is by US helicopter 3 or 4 days a week.  A few miles outside the town he had a serious injury.  Hikers went into town to get help.  They wanted the tribe to give the helicopter permission to land that day but it wasn't one of the 3 or 4 days on the schedule the tribe had agreed to.  It took over 12 HOURS to get permission from the tribe to land the helicopter.  It should've been a few phone calls and well under an hour. 

 

After an hour of  not getting permission yet the US helicopter should've flown in, hauled the guy out and asked for forgiveness later. There was no reason for that hiker to be in agony for half a day when the helicopter could've been summoned immediately.

 

[eternalsummer]

I think 8circles's problem (and mine) with understanding is that in the helicopter scenario, there is no reason to ask for forgiveness afterward, because the helicopter guy who left without getting permission was doing the right thing.

 

I think it is the difference between asking forgiveness in a technical way (I don't think I've done anything morally wrong, but am trying to placate you by asking forgiveness) and asking forgiveness in a real way (I know I've done something wrong and am asking you to forgive the transgression).

 

Sometimes the first is required, even if you haven't done anything actually wrong, to continue the relationship on a good footing, I guess.

[ILiveInFlipFlops]

I think 8circles's problem (and mine) with understanding is that in the helicopter scenario, there is no reason to ask for forgiveness afterward, because the helicopter guy who left without getting permission was doing the right thing.

 

I think it is the difference between asking forgiveness in a technical way (I don't think I've done anything morally wrong, but am trying to placate you by asking forgiveness) and asking forgiveness in a real way (I know I've done something wrong and am asking you to forgive the transgression).

 

Sometimes the first is required, even if you haven't done anything actually wrong, to continue the relationship on a good footing, I guess.

 

Yes, this is the difference. It's not about really asking for forgiveness. It's about being prepared to placate and deal with the possible annoyed response and repercussions coming your way. 

 

In the helicopter scenario, had the chopper just landed and gotten the guy out of there, the probable repercussion would be the tribe going to the government officials/group officials responsible and complaining, protesting etc. However, in most people's opinion, the placating that would need to be done afterward is a less onerous consequence than the one of letting the poor guy suffer while bureaucrats hashed out red tape and perceived offenses. Likewise, in my fire pit vs. fussy neighbor scenario, I like my decent relationship with Fussy Neighbor, however I also have the right to use my property as I see fit, as long as I'm not breaking any laws. So dealing with placating FN is a lesser consequence to me than the one of feeling as thought I don't have autonomy on my own property. Therefore, I have my fire and my gathering, and I prepare myself to placate the next day if I have to.

 

It's generally not about real forgiveness, because most people don't apply this concept to the kinds of things that need real, true, heartfelt forgiveness. Some do, and some probably miscalculate and find that they have to ask for that kind of forgiveness after all! 

[HS Mom in NC]

I think 8circles's problem (and mine) with understanding is that in the helicopter scenario, there is no reason to ask for forgiveness afterward, because the helicopter guy who left without getting permission was doing the right thing.

 

Except that the tribes aren't going to agree with you on that.  No one who isn't a member of that tribe is allowed to enter without permission according to the law.  You can get caught up on deciding that your definition of what the right right thing to do is, but tribes are very particular about border issues.  When you break the law they expect you to answer for it.  You may not consider it a big deal, but honey, they do.  They're very serious about being a sovereign nation and the agreements made about who may enter their territory and when are a very big deal to them for obvious reasons related to their horrific history.  It's a very serious issue and violating what is essentially international law, even for a very good reason,  would most certainly be an appropriate time to issue a formal apology for the sake of peace. 

 

Are you not from an area near tribal land?  Have you not had to deal with tribal relations before?

 

Apparently I was unclear.  He should have flown in right away anyway instead of waiting for permission, but he didn't because it was a potentially politically volatile situation and that guy suffered because of it. Then the US Governor should've issued a formal apology something like, "A US citizen was in need of immediate medical treatment and we put that above waiting for a response through proper channels. We apologize for acting before being given official permission to enter tribal land. I take full responsibility." That's how diplomacy works. The tribe would've been insane to to do anything other than accept the formal apology acknowledging the extenuating circumstances. 

Edited March 23, 2016 by Homeschool Mom in AZ

[TrixieB]

B. Simpson said it on page 125 of Clawback.  Now that I've read through this thread, I see that it's a common saying I've never heard.

[eternalsummer]

Except that the tribes aren't going to agree with you on that.  No one who isn't a member of that tribe is allowed to enter without permission according to the law.  You can get caught up on deciding that your definition of what the right right thing to do is, but tribes are very particular about border issues.  When you break the law they expect you to answer for it.  You may not consider it a big deal, but honey, they do.  They're very serious about being a sovereign nation and the agreements made about who may enter their territory and when are a very big deal to them for obvious reasons related to their horrific history.  It's a very serious issue and violating what is essentially international law, even for a very good reason,  would most certainly be an appropriate time to issue a formal apology for the sake of peace. 

 

Are you not from an area near tribal land?  Have you not had to deal with tribal relations before?

 

Apparently I was unclear.  He should have flown in right away anyway instead of waiting for permission, but he didn't because it was a potentially politically volatile situation and that guy suffered because of it. Then the US Governor should've issued a formal apology something like, "A US citizen was in need of immediate medical treatment and we put that above waiting for a response through proper channels. We apologize for acting before being given official permission to enter tribal land. I take full responsibility." That's how diplomacy works. The tribe would've been insane to to do anything other than accept the formal apology acknowledging the extenuating circumstances. 

 

 

This is a difference from what is the right thing to do and what different groups may perceive as the right thing to do according to their personal interests.

 

So the US government's asking for forgiveness in this scenario is not actually asking for forgiveness of something someone has done morally wrong.  They are just apologizing for offending someone (no matter how legitimate the feeling of offense may be, the right thing to do morally was still to rescue the guy to spare him the pain of waiting).

 

If it was in fact not morally correct to violate the tribe's territorial rights to spare the guy the 12 hours, then you are genuinely asking for forgiveness of something done wrong, morally - and in that case, the helicopter person shouldn't have done it in the first place, because it was the morally incorrect thing to do.

[creekland]

This is a difference from what is the right thing to do and what different groups may perceive as the right thing to do according to their personal interests.

 

So the US government's asking for forgiveness in this scenario is not actually asking for forgiveness of something someone has done morally wrong.  They are just apologizing for offending someone (no matter how legitimate the feeling of offense may be, the right thing to do morally was still to rescue the guy to spare him the pain of waiting).

 

If it was in fact not morally correct to violate the tribe's territorial rights to spare the guy the 12 hours, then you are genuinely asking for forgiveness of something done wrong, morally - and in that case, the helicopter person shouldn't have done it in the first place, because it was the morally incorrect thing to do.

 

That's the funny thing about laws.  They seldom care about morality, esp in extreme situations.

 

Hence the saying and some folks following it.

 

It'd be nice if we could just use common sense, but that's not likely to ever happen as people would never agree on what makes up common sense.   I think Hammurabi was the first (known) to start figuring that out.

 

Laws or common happenings/expectations that get broken often need apologies.  Some apologies are more sincere and some are more formality, but it's still what happens.  Even a waiter at a restaurant will apologize if he's been delayed for some reason or another.  He may have chosen to be delayed to help a lost traveler who needed directions or to help a child who needed medical care - both situations are likely to understood by many (not necessarily all), but still, he went against the code of his job without asking permission and it's human nature to apologize.  It's also human nature to feel better as the patron when the waiter has apologized even if the response to it is, "no apology necessary!"

[eternalsummer]

Right, it's more of a relationship-smoothing thing than asking forgiveness of an actual moral transgression; that totally has a place (more for some situations and people than for others, though)

[8circles]

I have to laugh at all the specific examples in this thread.  

 

It may work for *many* situations.  It is *many* times used in order to justify doing whatever you want.

 

A more accurate phrase would be "I'm going to do it & accept any consequences."  But it doesn't flow from the tongue.

[creekland]

I have to laugh at all the specific examples in this thread.  

 

It may work for *many* situations.  It is *many* times used in order to justify doing whatever you want.

 

A more accurate phrase would be "I'm going to do it & accept any consequences."  But it doesn't flow from the tongue.

 

You could start using that phrase if you prefer.   :lol:

 

Many of the rest of us like a catchy phrase that sums up what we do.  It's why the phrase has stayed in existence for decades at least, but there's no reason you need to join the crowd.  Seriously.  I can't recall ever keeping tabs on who uses it and who doesn't.

 

Most use the correct concept of the phrase when necessary though.

[8circles]

Most use the correct concept of the phrase when necessary though.

 

How in the world would you know this?  That isn't my experience at all so I'll assume it's a YMMV comment.

[HS Mom in NC]

It's also important to remember that no one person gets to decide what an apology is or when it's appropriate for anyone other than themselves and their kids. In one person's mind and culture it may appropriate and in another person's it may not be.  Welcome to the big wide world of diversity.

My husband and I once had to apologize to a foreign government by checking a box on the government's paperwork.  When we adopted our youngest from S. Korea in 2005 it was perfectly acceptable to their government for parents to not travel abroad and pick up the child.  Arrangements could be made for social workers to being the child to the parents, however a formal apology had to be signed with reason for not traveling marked with an X.  Options included things like "unfamiliar with international travel," and "work schedules" and a few other things.  So, to sum up, we had permission AND we had to apologize even thought no one involved in the situation thought anyone was doing anything morally or technically wrong.  Clearly the nature of apologies is different in that culture. 

 

When youngest was about 2 the Virginia Tech shooting happened.  Within 24 hours a formal apology from the government official in charge of international adoption was emailed to each parent of S. Korean adoptees.  Meanwhile, the shooter's sister apologized publicly even though she had nothing to do with it.  No one owns the concept of an apology. 

[heartlikealion]

I agree with you in general - esp your last paragraph, but folks do need to think carefully before making some of the decisions in your first paragraph as the saying is not always true.

 

Where we used to live, getting a permit for a yard sale cost $2.  Getting fined for not having one was $15 and they patrolled the area all the time.  Not knowing one needed a permit was not an excuse.

 

Hubby deals with many things Civil Engineering and a bit of that is land development and water quality.  Way too many people decide they can just do things with their land.  That used to be true in many places.  It's usually not now.  They can get HUGE fines and even have to tear down/restore what they've done (at their expense) if they aren't careful.

 

For many things in life, checking out the specifics is worthwhile.

 

Some gray areas or "known" areas (like the AF mentioned above) are exceptions.

 

In all situations, it's worth it to think about what one is doing and possibly run it past someone with more knowledge if possible.

 

oh, I wouldn't recommend avoiding permits if you already know that it's common in the area to need one. I just meant that if you were oblivious and let's say you needed to move ASAP and had stuff you wanted to get rid of at your yard sale, you might not have days to wait for the permit to go through (I thought those things might take a few days. Or at least business days). A child's lemonade stand is another example. If the worst case scenario is paying $15, it might be worth it to some people. It wasn't about not wanting to pay $2 (wow, that's cheap), but it was about the idea of having to go through the hassle that might leave some people "asking for forgiveness" rather than seeking permission. Maybe it was a poor example, but I was trying to think of something where it was fairly harmless. Some kids sold lemonade for 2 hours without a permit. Not the worst crime. Dh and I had a yard sale before we moved from one of our homes. It didn't occur to me at the time, but later I wondered if a permit was needed. Had it occurred to me on that Saturday morning, I probably wouldn't have any way to rush out to get one.

 

[creekland]

How in the world would you know this?  That isn't my experience at all so I'll assume it's a YMMV comment.

 

I guess because I see the majority agreeing to all the situations like the helicopter pilot on here.

 

There probably are some who feel the waiter needs to attend to his tables and ignore a lost tourist or young lad needing medical attention since that's his job and doing his job needs to be priority #1 100% of the time... or that everyone ought to take hours/days to get official permission (or get it denied) rather than doing something most feel should be done.

 

What about speeding to get someone critically injured to health care?  The law says one has to obey the speed limit.  I don't recall seeing any exceptions listed.  Would you if it were your relative who desperately needed immediate care?

 

Do most follow the speed limit in everyday life?  That sure hasn't been my experience.  I don't know any who even try to get permission to do so.   :lol:  They may or may not try for forgiveness from a police officer if caught.

 

I stand by my thoughts that the vast majority of people use the concept of the phrase even if they don't use the phrase itself.

[eternalsummer]

I think a person should do the morally correct thing; sometimes that is within the letter of the law (or the rule of the organization, or whatever) and sometimes it's not.

 

But in either case, there's no need to ask for forgiveness (not real forgiveness, for a moral transgression) unless you've actually done a morally incorrect thing.

[Butter]

IME when people use that phrase, in the end they don't need to ask for forgiveness because the end result makes those who would've initially said no happy (this is generally in a business setting).

[Tap]

The phrase is used in the Air Force all the time, and in a positive manner.

 

There are billions of nitpicky rules and sometimes the interpretation of them can be overboard on the side of doing nothing when the mission really does need to be accomplished, and a stict following or overinterpreting of the rules will result in doing nothing.

 

So, there are times when it is best to just do what is right overall even if you suspect you might be breaking one of the billion small rules that are made by the beurocracy. A good boss will back you up and ignore the violation or slap you on the wrist. You do have to be willing to take any punishment that may occur and that factors into people's decision matrix. But, if you put a request in before hand, it has to go through the beurocracy and people err on the side of doing nothing and over following the rules and overinterpreting them. It is insane how many rules and regulations there are about everything in any large beuracracy, and people's interpretations of the rules can vary.

LOL, I was going to say the same thing, but in terms of working in pharmacy, for a large company. The corporate people make rules that do not make sense in our pharmacy.  They slow things down and create snags, where things used to run smoothly.  Quite often, we try to comply, but over time, slowly go back to doing things the original way.....just knowing that if we get caught, we will have to pay the consequences (a scolding usually).  

 

 

 

An example of this....when people call prescription refills in to the pharmacy on the automated system, they are given an estimated pick up time by the computer.  That est time allows us 5 business hours to complete the script. This creates a situation, where every person who calls in overnight, gets a 2pm est time the next day.  Then anything that comes in after we open, will be given 5 hr est times, from thier call in time. Depending on how they are typed, they can come out., shuffled together. Corporate pharmacy has decided that we need to flag every prescription for the estimated pick up time.  We are expected to hand sort every prescription, and add to this pile throughout the day, putting them in an order that prioritize this wait time.  We process 300+ scripts a day. That would be a lot of sorting!

 

But in our pharmacy, we process and fill prescriptions as they come in. All of our estimated 2pm scripts are done by noon, but so are the 3 and 4pm scripts. We are a very fast pharmacy with highly competent staff. We don't lag, or let them sit around.  We are highly efficient and corporate wants us to add this new sorting step that will not matter one iota towards the estimated pick up time.  To us, if all the prescriptions that have an estimated pickup time of 2pm, are done well before 2pm,....so who cares what order they were done in? Adding the sorting, will only slow us down. The person who is hurt by us being slower aren't those patients, it is the mom in line with a sick kid waiting for their antibiotic, or the person in pain.  They now have to wait longer, just so I can spend time sorting prescriptions that don't need to be sorted.  LOL  

 

++there are pharmacies that have major issues with uncompleted scripts, so this is a legit concern in many pharmacies, but not ours.  The paint all of us with the same rules, so we decide to break this rule and just deal if someone catches us.  

Edited March 24, 2016 by Tap

[*Lulu*]

I dunno. It has its time and place. When you work in a group where the leader is overly controlling about small ideas and suggestions or the decisions fall to a dysfunctional committee, it really does often work out best to just do it, let them see how great it is and dispense with the slow down of asking for permission.

 

Yep.

 

My grandfather used to use it in reference to the church's district superintendent. frequently.

 

He also used it when about to do something he believed necessary but, if discussed, likely to end in a long debate with Grandma and still no action.

[Mom22ns]

Ah, that makes sense.  In that case I wouldn't need to ask forgiveness, though - I would have done the right thing.

 

But you might. You broke the rule, so you may need to ask forgiveness. 

 

The saying is our family motto. I don't use it in the context of you know you are doing something wrong and WILL have to ask forgiveness. I use it in the context of what you are doing may be wrong, but in your best evaluation, you see it as a good choice, so you're going to take the risk.

 

Sometimes this comes up in dealing with people who always say no. Sometimes it is just a situation where what you plan seems logically right, but you don't know if there is a rule against it. Sometimes you do know there is a rule against what you are doing - like Quill's example of opening the store early, but you still choose to do it because you believe it is the right thing to do.

 

The forgiveness comes in when you are wrong. You have made the decision based on your knowledge and common sense, but it turns out to be against a rule or not the best choice. 

 

I never wanted my kids to ask permission for every little thing. I wanted them to think for themselves. This is what I believe the statement implies, not determined harm or rule breaking.