I don’t want to speak for Sam Stone, and also with respect, but you’ve got to be kidding!
No moral difference between stealing and stopping for, then driving through a red light at a deserted intersection? If that particular situation opens up a slippery slope for you, I think you could skate from California to New York on a single push.
In general, running a red light could be very dangerous. It could cause loss of property and life for the driver and for other people. For these reasons and others, it is correctly against the traffic laws.
But in the specific situation described, there is no damage to anyone. Not even any chance of damage.
This is less of a moral dilemma than having an overdue library book. With the library book you might be keeping some other person from reading the book. But in Sam’s described situation, no person, institution, or thing is damaged, deprived of anything, forced to give up anything, is inconvenienced, or even affected in any way at all, other than Sam gets home 30 seconds earlier.
Now granted that if the traffic cops see him and pull him over, IMHO he’s got no room to complain and should just grin and bear it. He knew how the law reads, and he chose to save himself the time by breaking that law. But morally no different from stealing? I don’t see it.
I’ll add that I agree people are too inclined to speed (I’m certainly one of them), and that we shouldn’t be eager to tell people to break the law.
But sometimes breaking the letter of the law can actually follow the intent of the law better. Speeding by 5 mph and keeping a good traffic flow can often be safer than sticking to the speed limit.
And breaking the letter of the law when there is no possibility at all of breaking the intent of the law might get you a fine or other fallout, but carries no moral implication at all, in my estimation.
Huh? In your case, breaking the law affects other people. In my case, it’s a completely victimless ‘crime’. There is zero chance that I will adversely affect anyone else in the planet if I choose to proceed through that intersection. In no way is this even remotely comparable to stealing. It’s more like choosing to ignore laws having to do with sexual conduct in one’s own bedroom - a law that someone else thinks is necessary ‘for my own good’. I’ll be the judge of that, thank you.
And that’s no different than a 2-way stop, where the main street traffic always has the right of way and every expectation that no cars will leap into the intersection as they approach it.
If the intersection I was at was as dead all the time as it is at night, there would not be a light there. There would be a 2-way or 4-way stop. And again, the only time I would proceed through it would be when there are no cars visible anywhere at all. So I’m totally safe, and I’m not even confusing anyone from a distance.
Sam, you and RJKUgly miss the whole point of my post. I said I agree with your assertion about safety. What you fail to comprehend is that you are making the determination about what laws you should or should not violate. ALL lawbreakers want to be able to make those determinations. While I might be inclined to agree with your instincts about such things, I cannot accept the concept that everyone should be allowed to make their own decisions on such things. And if we grant to you, and everyone else, the moral right to ignore laws that are personally inconvenient at the determination of the individual, how is that then checked? Are you willing to grant that same ability to someone who is less caring of the safety of others than you are? By what moral ground do you grant it to yourself, and not to him or her?
And what happens when you are in error? What happens the first time you fail to heed a traffic law, and that contributes to an accident? Perhaps you are speeding, and a circumstance unforseen by you occurs, resulting in an accident avoidable had you been travelling the speed limit? Where is your moral right then? Are you infallible? Can you guarantee that your willing violation of the law won’t ever contribute to the harm of others?
I mention this with personal knowledge of the issue. Of the three traffic accidents I have been involved in, only one was my “fault” (when I was very young). The second happened when an elderly woman pulled out in front of me as I drove on US 101, a four lane highway (two in each direction). While I did not cause the accident (the driver simply coasted through the intersection, leaving me with no real place to go other than into her left front), I have always known that the severity of the accident was at least in part due to the fact that I was travelling over the limited speed, and thus unable to stop or swerve as well as I might have (I was going to be late to a court session, and didn’t want to upset the judge). I wasn’t driving at an unsafe speed for that stretch of road, but that doesn’t matter, does it?
Those who want to justify violating the law most always want to claim that they are doing so because the law shouldn’t apply to them at that moment. Rationalization is a wonderful thing. Now, if you violate the law intentionally, and at least have the personal rectitude to accept that what you are doing is wrong, well, at least you have a conscience about it. But to simply assert that “It is okay to break the law regardless of what society has decided because I’m special and able to decide for myself” simply isn’t defensible, for the reasons I’ve outlined. Reasons which no one has yet addressed.
To address what I have said, stop saying that I have said things I haven’t. I have not asserted that stealing is morally equivalent to speeding. I have not said that your choices are unreasonable. Let’s address what I have said, please.
Well, it wouldn’t be the first time I’ve missed something pertinent
Who can possibly make those decisions but me? Just because something is The Law, doesn’t mean it isn’t bad, useless, or silly. And even if it is a good law, one that protects people’s life, limb, and property in 99% of situations, they may be some places where it simply isn’t applicable.
Are you saying there are no laws that can, or even should be ignored without being “Wrong”? And if there is even one law like that, then don’t I have to make the decision to ignore that law myself?
Two things: First, we are talking about ignoring a law which may be personally inconvenient AND which cannot cause any problem whatsoever for anyone else in the given situation. An important distinction.
Second: Where do you see Sam or me trying to keep this right to ourselves? If I or anyone else decides a law does not apply in a certain situation and can safely be ignored, I pay the price if the enforcers catch me and decide to impose the penalty. That’s definitely a chance to take. But absent any possibility of harm to anyone or anything else, I see absolutely zero moral implication. I may have violated the rules and have to pay some price for that, but didn’t do anything wrong with a capital W, or “cause bad karma” wrong, or “violated morals or ethics” wrong.
Different argument. If you want to argue in any given situation that I’ve made a bad judgment, that’s one thing. A bad judgment call may certainly have moral or ethical implications, and we certainly have to pay the price for that. But that may be true whether the particular action is unlawful or not. Just because something is against some law does not automatically make doing it morally equivalent to stealing.
I have a conscience about doing harm. I have a conscience about doing something that may actually affect someone or something else.
What reasons have not been addressed?
I was addressing this:
Even though you again left out the requirement that there be no possibility of harm or foul to anyone or anything else, It seems to me you said that breaking any law at any time is morally equivalent to stealing. This seems silly to me. If I’ve misunderstood again, I apologize.
So… Are you personally in favor of people following the various sodomy laws on the books? Even husbands and wives in their own bedrooms? After all, if you let people use their own judgement about such things, soon there will be indiscriminate humping in the streets.
The traffic laws are full of statutes that require people to make their own decisions. Vague laws against ‘reckless’ driving leave it up to you to know when you’re being reckless and when you are not. There are plenty of laws that simply direct the driver to use ‘a safe speed’, or to proceed ‘when you can proceed safely’. Tailgating is a crime only when you are not following at ‘a safe distance’, but we leave it up to drivers to determine what that distance is for the given conditions, and we let cops make their own judgements about whether or not you were following the spirit of the law.
You can’t grant ‘moral rights’ to me. Morality is not what’s codified in the laws. Laws are amoral - they are a social contract between people. You can impose a penalty on me for breaking the contract, but in no way shape or form does society dictate my morality to me. Period.
Of course. As noted above, we do it all the time. I’m a libertarian - I believe people should be left alone and allowed to use their good judgement about a great many things that you apparently do not. That’s fine. Just don’t be fooled into thinking that your position is somehow more moral. I see it somewhat differently.
Now, I do believe that laws are necessary, including traffic laws. They’re important to maintain enough order in society that the infrastructure can function and people have maximim freedom to move in safety. No problem. And I’ll agree to putting penalties in place to punish people who break them. I also believe that people are responsible for their actions, and therefore the lawbreaker could also be punished in court through tort law.
If I get caught going through an intersection, I’ll pay the penalty. I accept that. But the real blame for a legal system that requires people to sit at deserted intersections for an arbitrary period of time because a little light on a timer told them to lies with the government. The law is indiscriminate. Sometimes it doesn’t make sense, but it’d too complex or expensive or infeasible to tailor the law or infrastructure to completely account for every situation.
That’s why reasonable people skirt the law around the edges when, in their adult judgement it is reasonable to do so. Traffic laws are a common example of this. The fact is, studies have shown that people tend to drive at whatever speed feels ‘comfortable’, and damned the road signs. Put up a sign that says “Speed limit 20” on a freeway, and see if you can get the traffic to slow to that speed permanently. It won’t happen. The main highway between Edmonton and Calgary has a flow of traffic that’s at least 20 km/h faster than the posted limit. People get busted for speeding on it regularly, but it doesn’t slow them down.
I have no right to grant anyone’s morality. All I can do is set forth the terms of a coexistence contract. But I’m afraid too many people today equal the law with morality.
Then I guess I’ll pay the price. Just like I would if I WAS heeding traffic law and still caused an accident, say because I was distracted or turned my head to check my daughter in the back at exactly the wrong moment, or because I was tired or had a blinding headache. I accept full responsibility for my actions. I hope that I do a good job of being a reasonable citizen, good neighbor, safe driver, and all the rest. I try. But I also realize that someday I may screw up and cause damage to someone. And I’ll be held responsible for it, which is fine.
And what if I had been going the speed limit, and something unforseen occurs that causes an accident - which would have been avoided had I been speeding?
If the speeding isn’t the direct cause of the accident, then it doesn’t enter into the ‘moral’ picture. I will satisfy myself if I was using good judgement or not.
No. Can you guarantee that your love of baseball won’t ever contribute to the harm of others? What if you kill someone with a ball? Maybe we should all hole up and not interact with each other.
The bottom line is that I exercised my own judgement and decided that a particular action was of no risk to anyone else. Therefore, I accepted the risk of being fined and proceeded. You have the right to make the same determinations, even if it means breaking the law. Of course, I also expect you to accept your punishment if caught. Maybe you can explain your thinking to the judge and having him agree with you. Or maybe you want to take a stand and treat it as social disobedience. More power to you.
No, I don’t accept that it is ‘wrong’. Segregation was wrong. Refusing to take part in it was moral, even if it meant breaking the law.
Sorry to keep harping on this, but too many people today think that morality flows from the pens of politicians.
Society can impose a rule for us to follow, and specify the punishment for violation of that rule, but it can’t tell me what is right and what is wrong. I’ll choose which laws to obey and which ones to break based on MY moral code. If I had been around during prohibition I wouldn’t have let any temperence movement tell me what I could or could not drink, and I would have happily tipped back a beer on occasion just as I do now. Enough people at the time agreed with that position to have the amendment repealed. Good thing they didn’t all just follow the law like sheep.
I don’t think I’m special. In fact, my motivation is exactly the opposite. I don’t think anyone is ‘special’. We all have the same rights. It’s you who think government is special - that a society has a class of people who have the right to dictate what is or isn’t moral.
That’s exactly what you said:
Specifically, you said that they were ‘morally the same’ because both used a rationalization for breaking the law. They are not morally the same. One has a victim, the other does not. This is a rather large difference to me.
The only sign I’ve seen is Slower Traffic Keep Right. This does not necessarily encourage speeding. Keep in mind it’s perfectly acceptable to go 45 in a 70. Just not in the left lane.
You didn’t specify 2-way stop. And even a 2-way stop is somewhat different. When entering an intersection on a green light, one should expect that the cross traffic will remain stopped as long as their light is red. When entering an intersection where the cross traffic is controlled by a stop sign, one would expect that the cross traffic will remain stopped only until they believe it is safe to enter the intersection. It would be normal to exercise more caution in that situation, even though one has the right of way. Think of the analagous situation for a traffic-light controlled intersection when the lights are set to flash. One direction flashes red (the equivalent of a stop sign), while the cross-direction flashes yellow, which means to proceed with caution. The lights do not remain green, even though the cross-traffic has a flashing red light. The flashing yellow is telling you, “The cross traffic could conceivably enter the intersection at any time, so be careful”. So no, a solid red traffic light is not the same as a 2-way stop sign, ever.
If the traffic engineers had decided that it’s not necessary to control the intersection at that time of night, they would have programmed the lights to flash. I don’t buy the argument someone made that it’s a cost issue. The cost would be minimal. The lights in my neighborhood used to flash late at night, and no longer do. It no doubt cost more money to re-program them.
I think you can assume that if the lights are operating, they are doing so because whoever makes that decision wants them to be. So I don’t think you can assume anything about what would be going on under those conditions. Obviously, you can disagree with the traffic engineers, and I would agree with you to a certain degree. It seems a little anal-retentive for them to make me wait 2 minutes for a left turn arrow at 3:00 in the morning when there isn’t another car in sight. But when you run the light, you are making an assumption that you are infallible, and that it is impossible for you to miss seeing another car. So while I can’t say I’ve never done it, I wouldn’t be too self-righteous about it.
A more lengthy response has to await time to make it, but I wanted to clear up one thing:
I wasn’t suggesting speeding was morally equivalent to stealing. I was stating that breaking the law is equally amoral in each case. Stealing, of course, is amoral in and of itself in most cases, which is why it carries a greater opprobrium.
I don’t think that Sam and I are ever going to agree, given that he doesn’t accept the concept that following the law carries any morality, and I believe it does. Nonetheless, I draw attention to the simple fact that, in all the analysis, there remains the fatal flaw I’ve pointed out: if the individual can determine for himself or herself when they want to break the law, without the determination to violate the law carrying an inherent penalty in the eyes of society, society will have a very tough slog.
Skip the legality. ,speeding is an act of childish defiance. It uses more gas,tires and oil. It is more dangerous and saves little time. Immature ,scofflawing is what it is.
Except you didn’t see that other car that was crossing on the green.
I went over this with my stepson who has just gotten his licence. I explained to him that the difference between doing something wrong in a car and something minor like shoplifting, dine-and-dash, etc. is that when you’re wrong in a car - someone can die. I’ve heard this particular crime compared to stealing or sodomy, etc. in this thread and all of those are wrong analogies. I’d compare it to unlawful discharge of a firearm. You’re on a hiking trail and no one is around you do a little target practice. If you’re right, no big deal - but what if you are wrong and someone is hiking behind that grove of trees?
When I joined the military at 17, I had very little driving experience. By 19, I was stationed in Europe, so I learned a lot of my driving technique on European rodes. Following the enlistment ending, I returned to the US at 22. So upon my return my driving skills reflected being attentive, precise, quick, and aware of my surroundings at all times. I also learned how to drive at higher speeds than what is accepted in the US. I noticed that people drove just as fast in some instances, but the level of care and safety was much, much lower.
During my 20s, I was definitely your typical high-beams flashing left-lane driver (this is actually a courtesy in Europe; here people take offense). I commuted 90 miles to work daily and had little patience for those not adhering to the unofficial road system (e.g., left lane is for passing only).
Now I am in my early-mid 30s with a total daily commute of 5 miles.
What I’ve found is that I’ve slowed down considerably and am exponentially more patient behind the wheel. I barely drive above +5MPH beyond the speed limit and I am almost never in the left lane. This isn’t because of the speeds, but the typical actions taking by American drivers who drive at high rates of speed: taking unnecessary chances, eating, talking on a phone (or otherwise not paying attention), etc.
IMHO: It is not the speed that is dangerous, but the manner in which one drives. High speeds are perfectly safe in the right cars, on the right roads, with the right drivers. But the problem I’ve found is that the presence of all these requirements is seldom at best.
In Sam’s described situation, there is no possibility of error. Has he described the situation correctly? I don’t know. Is there value in following the laws in the vast, vast majority of situations because it’s hard to be sure of all the variables? Absolutely.
But grant the hypothetical situation where breaking a law can cause no harm. Given that, is breaking the law, just because it is the law and not because it does any good in that situation, always a moral wrong? DSYoungEsq seems to be saying yes. I say no.
More, he seems to say that breaking a law is always a moral wrong, that there are no exceptions. Again, I say no. And he seems to say that breaking a law that causes absolutely no harm and no effect on anyone or anything is just as morally wrong as stealing, or presumably even worse crimes. Again, I say no.
Laws can be good, bad, or indifferent to morals and ethics. Likewise, breaking those laws involve actions that are also good, bad, or indifferent to morals and ethics. By itself, breaking the law itself has no moral consequence in my opinion. It is the actions and consequences that count.
Granted, if I choose to break those laws, I may be subject to the consequences of the law. This is the result of the social contract that keeps our society working, and I think it’s a good thing.
I also would pay no attention to speeders going way faster than you on the Garden State Parkway, assuming you are doing a safe speed close to the limit and are in a non-passing lane. You could always fantasize that they are liable to wind up like Governor Corzine, whose official vehicle was doing 91 on that road just before it crashed and rolled (because the driver couldn’t react safely in time to an unexpected obstruction). Corzine just got off the ventilator, I hear.
I drive on a narrow two-lane road in deepest, darkest suburbia at night going home. There is no shoulder to speak of and poor to nonexistent lane and side markings (plus telephone poles about three feet off the pavement). There are also plenty of deer cutting across and I’ve had a close call or two in the area. The posted limit is 45 but I’ll often do 35-40 at night so I have a better chance of reacting to Bambi in time. Occasionally I’ll be tailgated and I get as far over to the right as I can (which isn’t very far) so they’ll get the hint and pass (a few have the brains to). Someday one of these idjits will roar by me and total his vehicle up ahead on a deer.
And I’ll laaaaugh.
Tell me, Cheesesteak, how fast do you drive in Cheesequake?
I’m sorry - did I miss the part where being at a light instead of a stop sign can make cars magically appear out of thin air? Or did you miss the part where I said that there were NO other cars on the road and I had excellent visibility in all directions?
Or are you suggesting that I shouldn’t make that decision because I’m not capable of seeing other vehicles in such conditions? In which case, do you advocate removing all 2-way stops in the country? After all, I could stop at thet stop sign, then proceed because I think it’s safe and STILL get hit by that car I apparently was incapable of noticing.
Really, this is just a bizarre argument.
And for all of you who say it’s immoral to break the law, regardless of what the law is… Do any of you live in a state with blue laws? Sodomy laws? I assume you refuse oral sex from your wives or husbands because it’s against the law?
If a kid comes to your door and offers to mow your lawn, are you concerned about child labor laws? Do you ask if the kid has a business license?
Or if you think it’s a public safety matter, have you ever driven your vehicle with a burned out headlamp or taillight? Or with a shimmy you’re planning on having looked at ‘soon’? You never drive on tires that are too worn, or drive with wiper blades that really should be replaced? These are all technical violations of the law, which requires you to maintain your vehicle in good working order without known safety defects.
The world is full of laws that are routinely ignored. In fact, there are many laws that are not enforced at all because the pollice understand that the law only works when people on the margins exercise their good judgement. Occasionally, to make a point the police will institute a ‘zero tolerance’ program somewhere and bring things to a crashing halt. You start ticketing every vehicle infraction, and suddenly you’ve got dozens of vehicles pulled over on the side of the road being served tickets.
In the meantime, the REALLY unsafe things to do in a car, such as talking on a cell phone, engaging in a conversation with your passenger, driving while gulping down your breakfast or while tired are generally not illegal (well, cell phones are in some places).
So you have NEVER had to stop short when a car or a pedestrian comes out of nowhere? The point I was trying to make is let’s just say you do this 99 times with absolutely no problem BUT the 100th time you just did not see a motorcycle or a bicyclist or a pedestrian crossing in front of you and you hit them. What then? “Ooooops!”? Or are you saying that such a situation is utterly impossible? Bear in mind, I got hit crossing a street by someone doing what you did. His response? “I didn’t see you.”
If there is even the slightest possibility of that, I would wait for the light. Your hypothetical is bizarre - couldn’t you say that about ANY kind of driving? What if you stop at a stop sign, and then when you go you hit someone you didn’t see? How is that any different?
I will admit that the difference is tiny, if you’ll admit that there is a difference.
And the difference is this: In one case you followed the rules but hit someone by mistake, and in the other case you chose to break the rules and hit someone by mistake.
Or I can phrase it this way: In one case you followed the rules but hit someone by mistake, and in the other case you took a calculated risk and hit someone by mistake.
Or I can phrase it this way: In one case you followed the rules but hit someone by mistake, and in the other case you convinced yourself that there was no risk at all and then you hit someone by mistake.
All the above boil down to this: Humans are fallible. That’s why we call these things “accidents”. But one case was truly an accident, and the other could have been avoided by following the rules.
A distinction that isn’t a distinction. By definition, if you proceed into an intersection and hit someone, you weren’t following the rules, because the rules state that you should not enter the intersection until you know it is safe to do so.
There are many, many laws that we violate all the time because our judgement tells us that, in this particular case, following the law would be silly, pointless, or counter-productive. Laws can’t account for every possible scenario - they are blunt instruments.
For example, it’s against the law here to have open liquor in a vehicle. If the seal has been busted on a bottle, it’s illegal to have the bottle in your vehicle. But you know what? I’ve been at parties where I brought a bottle of something, and at the end of the night the host gave it back to me and said, “Take the rest home. We’ve got plenty.” Not once have I gone, “But… but… The seal has been broken! I can’t transport that!” I put it in a bag and throw it in the car, even though this act is apparently on the same moral plane as stealing and other heinous crimes.
I understand why the law is there - so that idiots driving around swigging from a bottle can be prosecuted. So there aren’t wild drinking parties inside moving vehicles. None of the rationales apply to me taking party supplies home, so I ignore the law. I also understand that if I hit a checkstop and they look in the bag and see open liquor, I may get fined. Or maybe the cop will also exercise his good judgement and see that this isn’t the purpose of the law and let me go.
As for my analogy with sodomy laws, I saw someone dismiss that above as being clearly not in the same category. But it is. The people who enacted that law thought it was important. They thought the law was needed to protect the very fabric of civil society. To them, it may have been MORE important than the need to make sure people sit through a full light at 2 AM on a deserted intersection. If you don’t agree with them, it would seem to me that you are substituting your good judgement for theirs, which I’ve been told in this thread is something you should never do. The law is the law, right?
We need to define our terms better. I’m not sure how you would define the term “know” in this context.
Specifically, what would we say of the case where one looks back and forth several times, sees no one, and says to himself, “I know that it is safe to cross this intersection” — but he was mistaken and hits someone.
To me, it is possible to say such a thing, to truly believe it, and to still be wrong nevertheless. Therefore, as I wrote before, if you stopped at the red light and waited until it turned green, and then looked in every direction and decided it was safe, and crossed the intersection, and hit someone anyway, this counts as “you followed the rules but hit someone by mistake”. But if you stopped at the red light and did not wait until it turned green, but looked in every direction and decided it was safe, and crossed the intersection while the light was still red, and hit someone despite having not seen them, this counts as “you did not follow the rules and carelessly hit someone”. To me, that is a distinction which is a distinction.
But to you, that distinction “isn’t a distinction”. I can’t imagine why. The only explanation I can think of is that you consider yourself to be infallible, and that you refuse to acknowledge any possiblility of deciding that it is safe to cross the intersection, and still being mistaken about that decision.
