Moderator: Community Team
crispybits wrote:1) I take the informed risk of driving under the assumption that other road users will take all reasonable precautions when they use the road too. I wear a seatbelt, use my lights in the dark, etc etc because it is the morally responsible thing to do in order to minimise harm to myslf and others in the event that something goes wrong.
2) Because there are other examples of something being wrong exist, does that mean we shouldn't try to deal with this one? That's like saying that because other people are getting murdered, we shouldn't bother investigating this murder.
My position comes down to the fact that whilst using public highways, everyone has a responsibility to take every reasonable step minimise the damage to themselves and others if things go wrong. And while my example may be a rare case, so are the cases where people run red lights or drive at night with no lights. The rarity of the event is not a reason to say we don't need to take reasonable precautions against that event or to mitigate the damage caused by that event when the repurcusions of that event are potential significant harm to oneself or to others. It doesn't matter if that harm is physical or psychological, the moral thing to do is to take precautions.
And in the absence of moral behaviour, where there is a risk to public safety, it is the government's job to enforce moral behaviour through legislation.
TA1LGUNN3R wrote:So we've established that I have no right to self-determination in regards to what is perceived as concerning public safety. Never mind the details of whether this is true or not, but let's take it at face value. Let's take this discussion as a scaled version and apply it internationally.
I don't have the right to not wear a helmet or seat belt because it may have consequences on the psychological or financial burden of the community at large (or, alternately, I'm too stupid and therefore it's the responsibility of better educated persons to look out for me). So do we then have the right to enact legislation that concern countries that believe they may be autonomous, but really aren't? Are we obligated to protect these countries whose actions may affect us, regardless of their sovereignty?
Was the war on Iraq justified as one of its main goals was to bring democracy to the people? Or were we justified in threatening the safety of Japan under the Tokugawa shogunate so that they would trade with us, thereby increasing our financial security?
How far does this concern for public structural integrity extend? Could we theoretically start enacting legislation upon China as they've threatened (now surpassed) our financial status as number 1?
Wondering where we draw the lines here.
-TG
crispybits wrote:Why does there have to be a lazy one size fits all rule for every situation?
TA1LGUNN3R wrote:crispybits wrote:Why does there have to be a lazy one size fits all rule for every situation?
Rule of law. It's pretty much the basis of the entire anglo-american justice system and most of the western world. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with it, I'm just applying what is the status quo to other situations and the discrepancy this creates.
-TG
crispybits wrote:TA1LGUNN3R wrote:crispybits wrote:Why does there have to be a lazy one size fits all rule for every situation?
Rule of law. It's pretty much the basis of the entire anglo-american justice system and most of the western world. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with it, I'm just applying what is the status quo to other situations and the discrepancy this creates.
-TG
No, the rule of law says "in situation X, this happens, in situation Y, that happens". It can differentiate between radically different things, such as, oh I don't know, whether cyclists should take reasonable measures to protect themselves on public highways and what those measures are (as a bare minimum), and something compeltely different like, hmmm, maybe..... whether one country can justify invading another?
The principles can be similar, but if the subjects of those discussions are radically different, then other principles may also apply and the context and other external factors may also lead to a different decision.
crispybits wrote:Can you explain how the decision to invade Iraq is similar to the decision to enforce a cycle helmet law? Apart from a very (and I mean VERY) stretched application of the principle of protection of public safety there are many, many ways in which the judgement calls made in each case will be arrived at very (and I mean VERY) differently.
crispybits wrote:Why does there have to be a lazy one size fits all rule for every situation?
Return to Practical Explanation about Next Life,
Users browsing this forum: pmac666