|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 916,386 Year: 3,643/9,624 Month: 514/974 Week: 127/276 Day: 1/23 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1425 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Morality of Speeding | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
But it is still the losing of control that is the real issue, if control is not lost then no foul. That's just not true. If I had my finger on the trigger of a gun and ran around waving it at people, an argument can be made that my actions were just as immoral if someone died as if they didn't. The fact the gun went off (or not), was just an accident. The fact that someone died (or not) was due to me being a dangerous idiot. The faster you go, the greater the chances of losing control.The faster you go, the less time you have to make correct decisions about risks. The faster you go, the greater the chances of catastrophic mechanical failure. The faster you go, the worse any accident will be if one were to happen. Losing control of the vehicle is not immoral, its an accident. Behaving in a way that maximises the chances of losing control can be seen as immoral - even if control is maintained.
Only if there is loss of control, which can still have lethal results for either. If you lose control at 10mph, the chances your accident will be fatal are near zero. There is a greater chance of getting into a fatal accident by running at 10mph. If you lose control at 100mph, the chances of it being fatal or causing serious injury are much much much higher.
Is it immoral to go faster than the speed limit on a clear unobstructed road with optimum weather conditions? It depends on whether the speed limit correctly reflects the maximum acceptable safe speed on that road in the best of conditions. It might be considered immoral for an individual to make a decision that runs counter the consensus of expertise in road management/safety. The word 'certainly' does not apply either way here.
Is it more immoral to go 10mph over a 40kph limit (+25%) versus 100kph limit (+10%)? Assuming there are good reasons for each limit, then I'd imagine there would be a stronger argument against the 25% over the speed limit than the 10%
Or let's put it another way: is the setting of speed limits on roads due to some intrinsic immorality of speeding? Intrinsic? There is no intrinsic morality.
abe: Is the purpose of speed limits and speeding laws to enforce a moral position on speeding? I don't think so. It is seen that the government should protect the health and safety of its citizens, and that the speed of vehicles has an affect on said health and safety, so one could say that the government has a moral obligation to create and enforce speed limits.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 414 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
The question is, "Why is 30 MPH in a 30 MPH zone moral and 31 MPH in a 30 MPH immoral?"
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
The question is, "Why is 30 MPH in a 30 MPH zone moral and 31 MPH in a 30 MPH immoral?" There were lots of questions in the OP, and some that have been put forward in later discussion. This particular line of questioning, I answered in Message 11 quote: The question I have predominantly been focussed on is
quote: and to take issue with this absolute statement:
quote: I have not been arguing an absolute morality, black or white issue here. I have been saying that the faster you travel, the stronger an argument becomes for the judgement that you are acting immorally. The question you ask is a bit like someone asking: Why is it immoral to have sex with a girl who is 15 years 364 days old, but not a girl who is 16 years old? The answer is the same. It isn't inherently immoral in any way. The younger the person is, the stronger the grounds for it being immoral become. The law is set to an arbitrary and usually conservative value. Whether or not that is the best way, is a different debate. Yet another question is that of enforcement -and the best way to do it, but right now they are entirely out of scope for my position.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 414 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
So where is your line?
Is driving 45 in a 30MPH zone immoral? If you are driving 45 MPH in a 30 MPH zone to rush someone to the hospital is it immoral? Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
So where is your line? Is driving 45 in a 30MPH zone immoral? If you are driving 45 MPH in a 30 MPH zone to rush someone to the hospital is it immoral? A strong argument could be made for the reasons why driving 45 in a 30 zone is immoral. There may be situations that exist wherein it isn't immoral, I could imagine a few, there may be more. As to the emergency clause? Once again it depends. If it is perceived to be life or death, and the decision becomes potentially risking more lives to stand a chance to save another - then it is tricky stuff, but I would not say that someone in that situation is acting immorally necessarily. Obviously if they were doing 200mph past a school at kicking out time - the situation might warrant thinking that person was immoral for putting the lives of so many children in clear danger...it had better be a damned big emergency to justify that kind of action. Maybe they had a ticking nuke in their boot and the only safe thing to do was to try drive it as far out of the city as possible as quickly as possible, and the person driving was an expert driver, he had added audible and visual cues to warn people of his speed etc etc etc. You ask for my line? There is no line. Each scenario has its own merits. However, most drivers, in most locations, in most situations are best sticking either to the conservative speed limit for the area or the speed they judge to be safe, whichever is lower. Clearly any simple system will have exceptions, and each of them should be weighed according to its merits and flaws.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
LinearAq Member (Idle past 4696 days) Posts: 598 From: Pocomoke City, MD Joined: |
See Romans 13:
quote: Breaking the speed limit is an affront to God. That sounds pretty immoral to me.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 414 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Too bad Hovind never read that. LOL
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1425 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I don't think so. It is seen that the government should protect the health and safety of its citizens, and that the speed of vehicles has an affect on said health and safety, so one could say that the government has a moral obligation to create and enforce speed limits. So you would agree that government laws have nothing to do with morality per se?
Intrinsic? There is no intrinsic morality. Or intrinsic immorality to speeding.
It depends on whether the speed limit correctly reflects the maximum acceptable safe speed on that road in the best of conditions. It might be considered immoral for an individual to make a decision that runs counter the consensus of expertise in road management/safety. Assuming there are good reasons for each limit, then I'd imagine there would be a stronger argument against the 25% over the speed limit than the 10% Yet if all roads are designed with a 10mph safety factor then this doesn't apply -- in both cases it is safe to travel at 10mph over the posted limit. In driver's ed (many years ago) the instructor told my son that police won't pull over drivers for speeding up to 10mph over the posted limits -- does this make it moral to do so?
If you lose control at 10mph, the chances your accident will be fatal are near zero. There is a greater chance of getting into a fatal accident by running at 10mph. If you lose control at 100mph, the chances of it being fatal or causing serious injury are much much much higher. But you can be traveling on two identical roads, one with a posted limit of 50 mph and one with a posted limit of 40 mph -- so you can travel at 50mph and have the same probability of lethal result, involving speeding on the one hand and not on the other.
Losing control of the vehicle is not immoral, its an accident. Behaving in a way that maximises the chances of losing control can be seen as immoral - even if control is maintained. Why assume loss of control is maximized by the level of speeding involved? The argument is not based on traveling at whatever is the maximum possible speed for the surface, driver and vehicle.
The faster you go, the greater the chances of losing control. The faster you go, the less time you have to make correct decisions about risks. The faster you go, the greater the chances of catastrophic mechanical failure. The faster you go, the worse any accident will be if one were to happen. This is true regardless of what the speed limit is.
Message 18 The question I have predominantly been focussed on is quote: And what you seem to ignore is traveling at a speed below the reckless and dangerous level while still operating above some posted speed limit. You seem focussed on maximum rather than excessive (jars 31/30).
and to take issue with this absolute statement:
quote: Such as at 5mph in the back 40 of some farm? Enjoy. compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
Would having an accident that hurts no one be immoral? Would having an accident that does hurt someone be immoral? Speeding is certainly illegal \ against the law, but is it immoral? I would think so, yes. The problem, I believe, is that the word "immoral" is a bit ambiguous now or days. Most people only think of that word in the context of religion. But that certainly isn't the case. The dictionary describes it as: violating moral principles; not conforming to the patterns of conduct usually accepted or established as consistent with principles of personal and social ethics. When someone goes tearing through your neighborhood, which is usually no more than a 30 mph zone, in a Corvette, what will most people's reaction be? Probably, expletive, expletive, that guy is gonna kill some one. Even if he doesn't kill or hurt a soul, we all sort of intrinsically agree that the potential is great. I think most of us revert to the Golden Rule on this. They may find themselves subconsciously thinking how tragic it would be for some little girl to be playing outside, and this idiot just might kill an innocent girl. How unjust, we probably would think. Then you have to consider why it is against the law to begin with. If nothing comes of it, then why is it against the law? Answer: For the very same moral reason we find it immoral. That's why I think, yes, it is immoral. Again, I think the problem is that we tend to associate that word in religious terms, when really, its a lot broader than that. “This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
if no one is harmed by speeding alone then it is (clearly?) not immoral. I understand what you are saying, and on paper probably sounds real nice. In a hypothetical situation, would you place your son or daughter next to a road with a speeding car? I'm guessing you wouldn't, and I'm certainly not suggesting that you actually test the theory. Just test in your mind. Would you not find yourself compelled to knock that person out when they got out of their vehicle? Where do you think that feeling derives? Why do we feel it is justified? To be clear, I'm not suggesting that the feeling alone always arbitrates the morality or immorality of it. But it is a good place to start, since guilt, anger, empathy and sympathy is like a moral gauge. But saying that since the action didn't end in total catastrophe, it must be okay from a moral outlook is begging the question. Could we say that an attempted murderer should be freed because they didn't complete the action? Would that attempted murderer be any less immoral for it? “This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Thor Member (Idle past 5931 days) Posts: 148 From: Sydney, Australia Joined: |
abe: Is the purpose of speed limits and speeding laws to enforce a moral position on speeding? In at least some cases, their purpose seems to be little more than lining the pockets of the relevant local authorities with the fines they collect. I've seen some roads (and I'm speaking purely about Sydney here, not sure about the rest of the world) where the limit is clearly and obviously less than what would be a safe speed. Long, straight and wide roads with no real hazards, where you actually have to concentrate on driving slow enough to keep to the limit because it seems so slow in relation to the road conditions. interestingly enough, the police often seem to show up on these roads with their radar guns....hmmmm. In those cases I'd say that driving over the limit is not immoral, just expensive.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1425 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
When someone goes tearing through your neighborhood, which is usually no more than a 30 mph zone, in a Corvette, what will most people's reaction be? Most corvettes I have seen driven have been a relatively staid and legal speeds, well within the bound of normal driving behavior. Why would this result in such a reaction?
I think most of us revert to the Golden Rule on this. And again -- in my experience MOST people speed between 5 and 15 mph over the speed limit ... in every place I have lived. So by this measure it would be moral for others to do the same?
Then you have to consider why it is against the law to begin with. If nothing comes of it, then why is it against the law? Answer: For the very same moral reason we find it immoral. But you haven't found it immoral. You seems to have concluded that it is immoral because it is against the law and it is against the law because it is immoral ... notice any problem with that reasoning?
That's why I think, yes, it is immoral. Again, I think the problem is that we tend to associate that word in religious terms, when really, its a lot broader than that. Given that morality is derived independently of religion it is reasonable to conclude that the relationship to religion is false from the start. Morality -- in spite of the bible?.
Message 25 I understand what you are saying, and on paper probably sounds real nice. In a hypothetical situation, would you place your son or daughter next to a road with a speeding car? Given that they grew up walking along roads by themselves - alone - while people were habitually speeding between 5 and 15 mph faster than the speed limits, the point is mute.
To be clear, I'm not suggesting that the feeling alone always arbitrates the morality or immorality of it. But it is a good place to start, since guilt, anger, empathy and sympathy is like a moral gauge. How bizarre. And I thought it was from rational consideration of consequences.
But saying that since the action didn't end in total catastrophe, it must be okay from a moral outlook is begging the question. No, it is separating the issue of speeding per se as normally experienced by the majority of people from the issue of causing total catastrophe which occurs rarely and can equally occur going the speed limit.
Could we say that an attempted murderer should be freed because they didn't complete the action? Would that attempted murderer be any less immoral for it? But we are not talking about murder or intended harm to others, just speeding. Enjoy. compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
Most corvettes I have seen driven have been a relatively staid and legal speeds, well within the bound of normal driving behavior. Why would this result in such a reaction? Pick whatever car you'd like. I just used a sports car known for its speed as an illustration. The make and model is not the critical aspect. The critical aspect is figuring out why most people would be beside themselves when a driver was recklessly endangering lives.
And again -- in my experience MOST people speed between 5 and 15 mph over the speed limit ... in every place I have lived. So by this measure it would be moral for others to do the same? Morality isn't always measured in linear terms. With the law, they come up with a maximum speed that the average driver should be able to both handle, and will still allow for a reaction time. The point is that obeying the limit is virtuous for all the reasons I've listed. Again, the legality of something stems from a moral framework. If it didn't, laws would be completely arbitrary, like the prohibition of petting lizards between the hours 3:12 pm and 6:36 am. In other words, there is always a moral to a law. However, the reverse is not always true. Did you know that you have no legal obligation to help someone drowning? You can sit there and watch them die without the least bit of reprisal. If someone is choking on a piece of steak in a resturant, you can look them square in the face, with their eyes screaming for help and watch them die. Nothing can happen to you from a legal perspective. But, is it moral to sit their and watch someone die without trying to help them? Golden Rule, perhaps... Its also not illegal to try and save someone by using CPR, even if you don't know how to perform CPR. You are covered by the Good Samaritans Act. Because even though you did not have the technical know how, out of the obligatory moral of the situation, you tried to save their life, even if your attempts injure them more in the process.
quote: But you haven't found it immoral. You seems to have concluded that it is immoral because it is against the law and it is against the law because it is immoral ... notice any problem with that reasoning? No, because you are misrepresenting what I am saying. Laws are only laws because of their moral implications, not the other way around. Its moral to pay your bills because not paying them constitutes theft (i.e. getting something for nothing), and theft is immoral.
Given that morality is derived independently of religion it is reasonable to conclude that the relationship to religion is false from the start. Yes, morals are independent of an institutionalized religion. The greater question is whether or not its independent of God. But that's a whole other thread in and of itself.
Given that they grew up walking along roads by themselves - alone - while people were habitually speeding between 5 and 15 mph faster than the speed limits, the point is mute. Just because you let your kids walk along roads by themselves where people are speeding 5, 10, 15, 20 , 25, 30 miles an hour over the speed limit doesn't make it moot. Saying that its only 5 miles over the speed limit is immaterial and is like saying to the judge, "Well, your Honor, I only killed 5 people, not 10 or 15." Its minimizing what it is.
quote: How bizarre. And I thought it was from rational consideration of consequences. Does that mean you discount feelings entirely as a refusal to factor them in to the equation?
it is separating the issue of speeding per se as normally experienced by the majority of people from the issue of causing total catastrophe which occurs rarely and can equally occur going the speed limit. Then there is a definitive measurement which makes it immoral once you go over a certain speed? Sounds arbitrary. I would say, try not to think of it from a third person observation. Think of it in a personal situation, because personalizing it always brings in the question of morals. Think of someone falling asleep behind the wheel. Well, what do we know about sleep and humans? We know that all humans need to sleep. Is sleeping then, immoral? No. Is it a moral question? No. Knowing that you are tired but decide to try and fight it for a few extra miles, is it immoral not to stop? I think it is. And apparently the courts see it that way too. The problem is, its hard to prove. Think of your wife being decimated by a semi-truck because of operator negligence. Sure, you may be willing to forgive in the long run, which is wonderful in its own right. But you are entitled to be angry about it. Not just angry because you lost your wife in a senseless accident, but because that person deliberately placed themselves in a position that increased the likelihood of a catastrophe.
But we are not talking about murder or intended harm to others, just speeding. Fair enough. The scenario above is not intended to harm either. Edited by Nemesis Juggernaut, : typos Edited by Nemesis Juggernaut, : edit to add Edited by Nemesis Juggernaut, : added a link “This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1487 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Again, the legality of something stems from a moral framework. If it didn't, laws would be completely arbitrary, like the prohibition of petting lizards between the hours 3:12 pm and 6:36 am. Or, say, the prohibition of dominoes-playing on Sundays? What on Earth makes you think that laws aren't completely arbitrary, NJ? Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
Or, say, the prohibition of dominoes-playing on Sundays? What on Earth makes you think that laws aren't completely arbitrary, NJ? Did you ever consider why? There is always a "why," with laws. If that's true, then it can't be arbitrary. As for why no domino's on Sunday is likely a reflective law of the 4th Commandment, only its Christianized. Instead of Saturday, its now Sunday. There is a silly law on the books in the city I grew up in that is still on the books, albeit enforced. It was illegal, (scratch that), it still is illegal in Miami for more than three non-related, single women to live in the same domicile. Sounds arbitrary. But it isn't. There is a "why" attached to it. Turns out its on the books because it was initially to curb brothels in Miami. Edited by Nemesis Juggernaut, : No reason given. Edited by Nemesis Juggernaut, : No reason given. “This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024