Rules are made to be...?

Here is a theory:
Rules are made to for the masses and ideally to protect the masses.
However there is always an exception to the rule.
Should we ignore the exception and force the rule? Or allow the exception only for the exception?
If we allow the exception we compromise the rule.
If we do not allow the exception we compromise the exception.
But if the exception is the ideal the rule is artificially attempting to replicate or protect from abuse then should the rule be reconsidered?
If we do not allow for the exception to the rule we risk destroying or defiling the exception.
We may even risk the destruction of the rule if it becomes known that enforcing the rule abused the exception.
This could result in the untimely changing of rules that are still needed for the majority.
But when the majority becomes the exception to the rule and the rule is hurting large numbers of people then the rule is no longer noble but now an easy abuse of power and the rule needs changing.