responsibility and morality


Recommended Posts

45 minutes ago, cuchulain said:

What are the percentages, mererdog?  What percentage of drunk drivers get in accidents vs the percentage of sober drivers?  Because most people drive sober, so I don't know that more sober drivers equates a higher per capita, or that it doesn't.

So far as the question of morality, here is another, for those who say the person who drives does indeed have responsibility, due to the ability to understand their actions as risky.  God created everything just the way it is, yet isn't held responsible for anything bad, even though he had the ability to foresee exactly what would happen.  Isn't he in the same boat as the drunk driver, if not worse?(worse, considering he has perfect knowledge, whereas the drunk is impaired at best?)

In the language of the insurance industry, and the courts, an "act of God" is never anything good.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 54
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

5 hours ago, cuchulain said:

What are the percentages, mererdog?  What percentage of drunk drivers get in accidents vs the percentage of sober drivers? 

As I said, I can't find data to answer that. Since drunk driving is both a crime and socially unacceptable behavior, people who do it have incentive to hide it. Also, "drunk" is ill-defined, so someone who never drives drunk according to their standards may always drive drunk according to yours. It makes it difficult to put together hard data.

Still, even if a higher percentage of drunks get in accidents, the causality remains a bit hinky. Did the alchohol make them bad drivers, or are bad drivers just more likely to drive drunk? Someone who engages in one type of antisocial behavior usually engages in others. So I would guess that most people who drive drunk probably aren't exactly defensive drivers when sober.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/6/2016 at 0:42 PM, mererdog said:

Does it, though? I knew a guy, some twenty years ago, who drove drunk on a daily basis. In the year and a half I knew him he never got in a wreck. I can't find any data to help determine whether he was just extremely lucky, but anecdotal evidence would seem to suggest that public perception of the relative risks have become overinflated.

Morality is just the determination of right from wrong.. Is it right or wrong for a person to drive drunk or sober? Most Christians believe its wrong to get drunk, even if your not driving, but people with a lower moral table may not have a problem with driving drunk. If morality varies from person to person, then its defined by every individuals perception of what's moral. But where there are standards set and laws in place, we are all morally responsible and subject to the same quota, whether we agree with it or not. If your a parent, your morally responsible to care for your children, and if your your married, your morally responsible to be true to your wife. Not feeding your kids and cheating on your wife is unacceptable moral behavior. Failing to do the right thing is immoral, while not knowing what's right is just stupidity, whether its refusing to help an old lady across a busy street or ignorantly killing someone who doesn't believe as you do...       

Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Dan56 said:

But where there are standards set and laws in place, we are all morally responsible and subject to the same quota, whether we agree with it or not.

When laws are unjust, it is immoral to follow them. Where society is unjust, to be moral requires defying its standards. To not examine whether your society and its laws are just is to be ignorant of the morality of your own actions.

Edited by mererdog
Link to post
Share on other sites

I can certainly understand not being able to collect accurate data, mererdog.  When someone wants to hide the truth, it often comes out anyway.  But when large groups of people want to hide the truth, it somehow vanishes.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, mererdog said:

When laws are unjust, it is immoral to follow them. Where society is unjust, to be moral requires defying its standards. To not examine whether your society and its laws are just is to be ignorant of the morality of your own actions.

That's for sure... But even though I've always contested my tax rate as being immoral, I'm responsible to pay what's demanded. Its not because I'm ignorant of the morality of my own actions, but fear prompts me to pony-up the money in order to avoid vacationing at the Iron Bar Motel.. I guess morals are sometimes suspended as a matter of self-preservation.   

Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

Defiance of the tax laws is not being brave.  It's being stupid.     :sigh2:

That's probably what King George told those idiots who dumped his tea in Boston Harbor :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Dan56 said:

That's probably what King George told those idiots who dumped his tea in Boston Harbor :)

You want to talk American history?  All right.  The slogan was; "No taxation without representation."  Congratulations.  We now have taxation with representation.  Are you happy with the way things worked out?  All it took was a major war that could have been avoided.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

You want to talk American history?  All right.  The slogan was; "No taxation without representation."  Congratulations.  We now have taxation with representation.  Are you happy with the way things worked out?  All it took was a major war that could have been avoided.  

No, I'm never happy about giving half my money to the government.. Stupid or not, I'd fully support another tax revolt, but that won't happen because most people don't pay a cent, they already have zero taxation with representation. Yes, that war could have been avoided, but only if those patriots were content to stay on their knees to England and surrender their independence & freedom.  Defiance is brave when its corrects the unfair and immoral rule of law.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Dan56 said:

No, I'm never happy about giving half my money to the government.. Stupid or not, I'd fully support another tax revolt, but that won't happen because most people don't pay a cent, they already have zero taxation with representation. Yes, that war could have been avoided, but only if those patriots were content to stay on their knees to England and surrender their independence & freedom.  Defiance is brave when its corrects the unfair and immoral rule of law.

That's the old war propaganda.  Things worked out well for Canada.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, mererdog said:

My conscience says otherwise. Yours?

The idea of conscience is interesting.  I understand the premise, but to me it does not seem like an outside and separate entity, you know?  Merely a reflections of what a person already knows, perhaps underlying the surface of everyday thought.  I tend to think self preservation is the first moral imperative, although there are clearly exceptions to this "rule", and I use the term rule loosely.  But then, you have stated that you believe morals to be objective, and I disagree there.  Maybe there is a fundamental difference of opinion on this subject.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, cuchulain said:

The idea of conscience is interesting.  I understand the premise, but to me it does not seem like an outside and separate entity, you know?

Right. It's just a way of talking about a complex collection of instincts and emotional reactions using simplified terms. Similar to "libido". Asking whether your conscience agrees is a simplified way of asking whether you would feel guilty or ashamed acting a certain way, and whether you would be angry or indignant if someone else did. Not what you think as a matter of conscious analysis, but what you believe as a matter of reflex and instinct.

Edited by mererdog
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, cuchulain said:

 I tend to think self preservation is the first moral imperative, although there are clearly exceptions to this "rule", and I use the term rule loosely.

If morals are not objective, its no different than saying that red is prettier than blue. It doesn't really matter, because its all in your head.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mererdog said:

If morals are not objective, its no different than saying that red is prettier than blue. It doesn't really matter, because its all in your head.

 

Objective morals?  Like math or chemistry?  This is not going to happen.  At least, not without God.  This also will not happen.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

Objective morals?  Like math or chemistry?  This is not going to happen.  At least, not without God. 

 

I suspect that you not only cannot prove your claims, but that you can't even provide any supporting evidence for them that is not fallacious. Which rather begs the question "Why so certain?"

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.