Texting while driving.

[Harehunter]

From the topic of Why? Enrage Slith remarks that it seems most people don't take time to do a little introspective thinking. This triggered my reaction whenever I see someone not paying attention to their driving because they have their cell phone against their ear. It is even worse when they are texting.

 

Distracted driving has become more and more of a problem. It seems to me that common sense would dictate that you need to keep your focus on your driving, especially in high population cities like Houston, Chicago, New York. Apparently common sense isn't all that common these days.

 

Many legislatures from the city and county on up to the state level are trying to craft laws to prohibit that. I don't like them but I see the necessity of some sort of law that covers the incidence of crashes involving distracted driving.

 

My question is this: How far should these laws go?

1) Talking on the cell phone while driving, no hands free.

2) Talking on the cell phone while driving, using a blue tooth device.

3) Texting while driving.

4) Fiddling with your car radio, or A/C controls.

 

Personally, I think that

1) should apply only in the case of finding fault in a collision. Enforcing it at any other time should be based on individual circumstances, say a driver is weaving in his lane.

2) Using a blue tooth device with voice activation capability is to me no more distracting than talking to a passenger sitting next to you.

3) With regard to texting, I see no way that this can be safe, unless you are on open highways with little to no traffic, and even then that is still questionable.

4) I mention these because they also constitute a distraction. Should these be regulated as well? I think that these are similar to question 1; only with regard to a collision.

 

BTW, you may have noticed I didn't say accident. An accident I would term as a collision over which you have no control. Texting while driving is a choice.

[Aoslare]

Originally Posted By: Harehunter

BTW, you may have noticed I didn't say accident. An accident I would term as a collision over which you have no control. Texting while driving is a choice.

In English, "accident" does not refer to something you have no control over, it refers to something that is not intentional. If I slip and fall when its icy out, that is an accident even if I could have prevented it by walking more cautiously, or someone else could have prevented it by removing ice from the sidewalk. That's just what the word means.

[Harehunter]

I accept your definition as being more accurate, especially in the scenario you paint. Crossing a bridge covered in black ice, losing control of the vehicle and crashing into another one would fall into the accident category as well. I assume that the individual is taking reasonable care to prevent the accident, and not behaving recklessly.

 

As to reasonable behavior, how do you feel about someone who makes the decision to drive 30mph over the speed limit (I know, the rest of traffic is most likely traveling at 10mph over limit), while weaving through traffic and crossing four lanes at a time, while holding a cell phone to his ear? I see that as an "accident" looking for a place to happen.

[Randomizer]

You should try Arizona "driving" where similar behavior includes shaving while driving, using the steering wheel as a desk to write on a piece of paper, and applying make up while the car is in motion.

 

The idea is to prevent the distracting behavior before a collision occurs rather than have people go along their way convinced that they are not going to cause a collision because it has happen to them. They aren't any different from drunk drivers except there isn't a legal standard for impairment,

 

Restrictions are needed because of how easy it is for a collision to occur.

[Aoslare]

Yes, I agree with you that that person is an idiot, and is asking for an accident. And when they hit someone else, it is still an accident! They didn't deliberately seek it out, no matter how atrociously they failed to deliberately avoid it. Whether or not somebody "takes reasonable care" has exactly zero to do with whether they crash their car intentionally or accidentally.

[Harehunter]

Again, you are technically correct.

 

I suppose my attitude with regards to safety has been shaped by all the safety training I have had to receive, both in the military and especially with the engineering/construction company I work for. On my company ID badge we have the safety departments mission statement:

 

"We make NO compromise with respect to Morality, Ethics or Safety.

... if a design or work practice is perceived to be unsafe, we do not proceed until the issue is resolved."

 

Safety in our company does not stop at the construction site gate. It is a culture that is deeply embedded into each and every employee, whether they work in the field or in the home office, starting with a genuine concern from the president and owner of the company. And safety is not just for while on the job, but every where we go.

 

In the case of the reckless driver, that the most likely reason he has not had a crash is not because he is such a good driver, and not because he was just lucky. I would submit that his 'luck' was due more to the careful, defensive driving of the other motorists. Should our friendly neighborhood daredevil cause a fatality due to his reckless driving, that is called vehicular man-slaughter, with the car being defined as the weapon. I have served on a jury in just such a case. That was the most difficult case I have had to face.

 

This explanation is not meant to be bickering with you. I respect that you have a different viewpoint, and I value your feedback. It is just that this is what I have been taught, and what I live by.

[Dikiyoba]

Would calling all vehicular collisions accidents but categorizing them as avoidable if one of the parties involved did something reckless (for example, a pedestrian stepping out into traffic without looking or an intoxicated driver) or as unavoidable if no parties involved did anything reckless (for example, a driver at night with the headlights on and driving at the speed limit hits a deer that suddenly ran onto the road) be a reasonable solution? That way, we can return to the thread's true purpose of arguing what is and isn't reckless. Also whether Arizona has the worst drivers in the world.

 

Dikiyoba votes that Arizona does, after seeing five car accidents in the space of about thirty miles in Prescott. Yes, it was snowing. No, snow isn't all that uncommon in central Arizona.

[Enraged Slith]

Driving is a privilege we give out far too easily in this country. I'm a living example, honestly.

[Alorael at Large]

Originally Posted By: Harehunter

My question is this: How far should these laws go?
1) Talking on the cell phone while driving, no hands free.
2) Talking on the cell phone while driving, using a blue tooth device.
3) Texting while driving.
4) Fiddling with your car radio, or A/C controls.

You ask as though this is a novel question that has not been considered. In fact, there are substantial piles of evidence showing that talking to passengers does increase the risk of accidents substantially for new drivers, but has little effect on experienced drivers. Talking on the phone, however, always increases the risk of collision several-fold, even on hands-free sets. From a reasonable perspective, this should be banned outright everywhere for public safety. Texting, of course, is even worse, because it requires not just attention but eyes.

Radios and other dashboard controls are a sightly complicated case. On the one hand, they take attention off driving, and in the case of increasing pervasive screens and computers also draw eyes. On the other hand, it's almost never for the length of time that a conversation takes, and is always at the sole discretion of the driver. If traffic's hairy, people don't usually start fiddling with the AC. In dangerous driving situations the person on the other end of the phone just can't tell, and the evidence shows that the driver doesn't shut up.

—Alorael, who also has a practical concern. It may be impossible to show that someone was using a phone inappropriately after a crash. It's much better to prevent them from using the phone in the first place by making, and enforcing, laws about talking. How to enforce hands-free talking laws is another problem, though; how do you pull someone over and know they're talking on the phone and not just singing along to the music? Or talking to themselves? Or chewing?

[nikki.]

In England, it's already against the law to use a mobile phone/PDA/whatever to do the following whilst driving:

 

- make or receive calls

- send or receive picture and text messages

- access the internet

 

Also, it's illegal to do all that whilst stopped at lights or in a traffic queue.

[Lilith]

Originally Posted By: Harehunter

I suppose my attitude with regards to safety has been shaped by all the safety training I have had to receive, both in the military and especially with the engineering/construction company I work for. On my company ID badge we have the safety departments mission statement:

"We make NO compromise with respect to Morality, Ethics or Safety.
... if a design or work practice is perceived to be unsafe, we do not proceed until the issue is resolved."

This is a nice thing to say and all, but in practice of course you make compromises with respect to safety. If you didn't, you'd never agree to build anything at all unless you'd done a risk assessment to demonstrate that not building it would be more unsafe than building it. I feel confident in saying that your company does not do this.

Quote:

1) should apply only in the case of finding fault in a collision. Enforcing it at any other time should be based on individual circumstances, say a driver is weaving in his lane.

Should we only punish speeding or drunk drivers if they cause an accident too? There's plenty of precedent for penalising risky behaviour on the roads even when a specific instance doesn't harm anyone.

Quote:

2) Using a blue tooth device with voice activation capability is to me no more distracting than talking to a passenger sitting next to you.

There's some research suggesting that this isn't true. Apparently, the fact that the volume and clarity of the phone call varies depending on the quality of the reception means that it takes a greater mental effort to understand what the person you're talking to is saying, and therefore it can be more distracting than talking to a passenger, especially if the reception is bad. As has been noted, there's also the fact that the person on the other end of the phone can't see the road conditions and therefore shut up when traffic gets hairy.

Quote:

4) I mention these because they also constitute a distraction. Should these be regulated as well? I think that these are similar to question 1; only with regard to a collision.

Over here, there's an offence called "driving without due care and attention" that can be used as a catchall for that sort of thing. It's what you'll probably get a ticket for if an officer catches you eating a bowl of cereal while driving or something.

[Harehunter]

No, not a novel question. Just trying to promote awareness. This topic came up at our weekly staff meeting, which always begins with a 'safety moment'. Our safety department has no official policy with regards to cell phone use, but they highly recommend that they not be used while driving, even hands free. Otherwise it will be according to local and state laws that will be the determining factor.

 

I have known about the studies re the effect of passenger distraction being greater among younger or less experienced drivers. There have been proposals in the state legislature to the effect that younger drivers should not be allowed to drive with passengers unless one of them is an adult. We shouldn't have to do that, but I recognize the need.

 

As to hands-free use vs talking to a passenger, I too have heard the results you state, including the reasoning that if you have a passenger with you, they can see when the traffic conditions need the drivers full attention, but on the phone, they cannot. Here the responsibility lies with the driver to tell the other person that he needs to hang up and call back when it is safer, say after pulling into a parking lot. I have no compunction against doing that. Unfortunately, too few people will do that.

 

One situation that comes to mind where a strict ban on all phone usage is truly warranted is in a school zone, especially during drop off and pick up times. There are far too many little distractions to handle, and one more could be disastrous.

 

I do have the sense that we are steadily losing our liberties in the name of public safety, all because there is a decreasing sense of personal responsibility. There are many ways that a driver can be distracted that have the same potential of causing an accident (here I mean accident because we cannot control the distraction). It may seem an obvious thing to ban cell phone use while driving, and it may cause people, who would otherwise not do the responsible thing, to hang up. But what comes after that? Bit by bit, we lose our liberty, ceding to more and more governmental control. Not a big thing, not all at once, so why fuss over it?

 

Distracted driving is distracted driving. One law should cover it all. Just as we have laws that penalize tailgating, reckless lane changing, and running red lights. If there is any question as to what is reckless and what it not, let a jury decide. That is why we have trials; to try the evidence on an individual basis.

 

As for our friend in Arizona, you're welcome to visit Houston any time. You'll feel right at home.

Ya'll come back now. Y'hear?

[Harehunter]

Lilith, I always look forward to your viewpoints.

 

There is risk in everything we do in life, from making breakfast to mowing the lawn, from crossing the street. If we all did a risk assessment for everything we do in life, we would not live.

 

Stopping DUI before they cause a crash, probably fatally, does make sense. But the rules of probable cause apply; the arresting officer must have had some indication the person is impaired, even if the only thing he sees is someone walking out of the bar.

 

You caught me while I was responding to the passenger thing. But you already saw that point.

 

I am not certain, but I think the Texas code contains a similar provision with regard to 'due care and attention'. I will try to verify this. But here you address my final point of my last post.

[keira]

I'm lucky enough to live in the US state that has the second most drunk driving deaths in the nation. I believe drinking and driving is the thirdmost cause of death in Montana (don't quote me on that, I just remember a small rant in Driver's Ed to that extent). However, I don't think making a law forbidding texting while driving is the solution. Why? When the next big thing comes around, people will be back to doing the same thing. A few generations down people will be dying due to holographing while driving, etc, etc. I suggest a simple blanket crime, "reckless driving" (which sounds startlingly similar to a current crime). If you are so distracted by texting, or putting on makeup, or filling your face, that your ability to drive is impaired to the point of being a danger, then maybe you should not do that. My dad does the whole talking and driving thing a lot (not texting, I'm pretty sure he doesn't even know what texting is...), but he can handle it. Then there's those moron drivers who obviously can't, and they cause these accidents. So if you must put all your attention into driving, then do that; if you know you can handle it, then go ahead. There will always be those people who think they can do something when they in fact can't, but these people will do so anyway. I think it would be very difficult to protect these morons from themselves, so to speak.

 

But the answer lies not in creating a law, it lies in educating the future drivers. My Driver's Ed program was pretty good about this, but we need to do better. We need stricter requirements on who can get a driving license, much stricter. Honestly, I'm not the best driver in the world, but compared to some of the people in my school who drive, I am the deity of the roads. Seriously, if you are ever in southwest montana, stay far away from school zones at 3:20.

 

Just my poorly-worded two cents.

[Randomizer]

Originally Posted By: Harehunter

I do have the sense that we are steadily losing our liberties in the name of public safety, all because there is a decreasing sense of personal responsibility. There are many ways that a driver can be distracted that have the same potential of causing an accident (here I mean accident because we cannot control the distraction). It may seem an obvious thing to ban cell phone use while driving, and it may cause people, who would otherwise not do the responsible thing, to hang up. But what comes after that? Bit by bit, we lose our liberty, ceding to more and more governmental control. Not a big thing, not all at once, so why fuss over it?

It's less about losing liberties than there are more new ways to distract the driver than there were 20 years ago. After all driving is a privilege and not a right so you need to obey laws in order to do it.

We don't allow children under the age of 16 to drive their drunken parents home when they might be slightly safer drivers, because they don't have the right to drive. The exception is some rural areas in the US where there isn't traffic and they still need to be trained and licensed.

If you are driving, then drive. If you want to talk, text, eat, ... then stop the car and do so.

[Lilith]

Originally Posted By: Harehunter

I do have the sense that we are steadily losing our liberties in the name of public safety, all because there is a decreasing sense of personal responsibility. There are many ways that a driver can be distracted that have the same potential of causing an accident (here I mean accident because we cannot control the distraction). It may seem an obvious thing to ban cell phone use while driving, and it may cause people, who would otherwise not do the responsible thing, to hang up. But what comes after that? Bit by bit, we lose our liberty, ceding to more and more governmental control. Not a big thing, not all at once, so why fuss over it?

Personal responsibility is a chimera. It's never existed, because the very idea of an individual person is a myth. We are all cells in one body, all interconnected and interdependent, and the loss of one diminishes all: either everybody is responsible for everybody, or nobody is responsible for anything. Your own future self is a different entity from your present self, so why should you have any more right to risk your own future than to risk anyone else's?

Originally Posted By: Just what the doctor ordered

I'm lucky enough to live in the US state that has the second most drunk driving deaths in the nation. I believe drinking and driving is the thirdmost cause of death in Montana (don't quote me on that, I just remember a small rant in Driver's Ed to that extent). However, I don't think making a law forbidding texting while driving is the solution. Why? When the next big thing comes around, people will be back to doing the same thing. A few generations down people will be dying due to holographing while driving, etc, etc. I suggest a simple blanket crime, "reckless driving" (which sounds startlingly similar to a current crime). If you are so distracted by texting, or putting on makeup, or filling your face, that your ability to drive is impaired to the point of being a danger, then maybe you should not do that. My dad does the whole talking and driving thing a lot (not texting, I'm pretty sure he doesn't even know what texting is...), but he can handle it. Then there's those moron drivers who obviously can't, and they cause these accidents. So if you must put all your attention into driving, then do that; if you know you can handle it, then go ahead. There will always be those people who think they can do something when they in fact can't, but these people will do so anyway. I think it would be very difficult to protect these morons from themselves, so to speak.

it's precisely the people who think they can handle it but can't that are the problem, though

[Sudanna]

Quote:

It's never existed, because the very idea of an individual person is a myth.

Now that's just silly. I see what you're saying with cells and whatnot, but saying there's no distinction between one system of cells and another is nonsense.

[Lilith]

Originally Posted By: Thin Gypsy Thief

Now that's just silly. I see what you're saying with cells and whatnot, but saying there's no distinction between one system of cells and another is nonsense.

Once you draw a distinction, though, how do you justify saying that you are the same person throughout your life? How much difference does it take for one person to be considered different from another?

Suppose you have an identical twin. At age 50, you may well be more similar to your twin at the same age than you are to your past self at age 20. Does that mean that you and your twin are the same person while you and your past self are not? The dilemma seems inescapable to me: either any difference between two entities makes them different, in which case personal responsibility is meaningless because any individual person only exists for an instant in time before becoming someone else, or it doesn't, in which case there's no meaningful way to say that I'm a different person from you.

[Harehunter]

Originally Posted By: Lilith

Personal responsibility is a chimera. It's never existed, because the very idea of an individual person is a myth. We are all cells in one body, all interconnected and interdependent, and the loss of one diminishes all: either everybody is responsible for everybody, or nobody is responsible for anything. Your own future self is a different entity from your present self, so why should you have any more right to risk your own future than to risk anyone else's?

You never fail to fascinate me. Your's is a truly fascinating perspective. I have heard of the concept, that there is no individual, just one monolithic body. I have been taught from my earliest years that we are all individuals,

Quote:

... all ... created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

If in your view humanity is a single organism, how do you explain the strife that goes on in the world, all the atrocities that are committed in the name of one ideology or another (I do not exclude Christianity from this), the genocide or ethnic-cleansing that has happened at various times and in various places throughout our history?

Please do not take this as condemnation of your philosophy. I am truly curious. I have never met anyone who has held that view.

[Khoth]

Originally Posted By: Lilith

The dilemma seems inescapable to me: either any difference between two entities makes them different, in which case personal responsibility is meaningless because any individual person only exists for an instant in time before becoming someone else, or it doesn't, in which case there's no meaningful way to say that I'm a different person from you.

Presumably if you eat too much when you're 20, and that causes health problems when you're 50, then You[50] ought to be able to sue You[20] for damages. Sadly this is impossible, but escaping your legal responsibilities through a quirk in the laws of physics seems to be like an immoral thing to do.

My point, of course, is that you can construct a theory of personal responsibility without continuity of identity, by considering the hypothetical actions of time-travelling lawyers.

[A less presumptuous name.]

Originally Posted By: Harehunter

how do you explain the strife that goes on in the world, all the atrocities that are committed in the name of one ideology or another (I do not exclude Christianity from this), the genocide or ethnic-cleansing that has happened at various times and in various places throughout our history?

Cancer.

[Sudanna]

Originally Posted By: Lilith

Originally Posted By: Thin Gypsy Thief

Now that's just silly. I see what you're saying with cells and whatnot, but saying there's no distinction between one system of cells and another is nonsense.

Once you draw a distinction, though, how do you justify saying that you are the same person throughout your life? How much difference does it take for one person to be considered different from another?

Suppose you have an identical twin. At age 50, you may well be more similar to your twin at the same age than you are to your past self at age 20. Does that mean that you and your twin are the same person while you and your past self are not? The dilemma seems inescapable to me: either any difference between two entities makes them different, in which case personal responsibility is meaningless because any individual person only exists for an instant in time before becoming someone else, or it doesn't, in which case there's no meaningful way to say that I'm a different person from you.

Who said that? You're different from one moment to the next, let alone over the course of your life. But being different and being a different person are, well, different things. Being an evolving system does not mean that there's no connection or continuity between past, present, and future. The me of the the past is still me, just a different me, as is any me of the future. You don't need to be identical to be the same.

[Lilith]

Originally Posted By: Thin Gypsy Thief

Who said that? You're different from one moment to the next, let alone over the course of your life. But being different and being a different person are, well, different things. Being an evolving system does not mean that there's no connection or continuity between past, present, and future. The me of the the past is still me, just a different me, as is any me of the future. You don't need to be identical to be the same.

Well, okay, let's talk about evolving systems then. We're all descended from a single primordial organism. If you say that changing doesn't make you a different person as long as you retain a continuity with your past, then doesn't that make us all parts of that organism, since we all descended from it?

Originally Posted By: Harehunter

If in your view humanity is a single organism, how do you explain the strife that goes on in the world, all the atrocities that are committed in the name of one ideology or another (I do not exclude Christianity from this), the genocide or ethnic-cleansing that has happened at various times and in various places throughout our history?

Please do not take this as condemnation of your philosophy. I am truly curious. I have never met anyone who has held that view.

Master1 has the right of it, more or less: just because an organism exists doesn't mean that every action it takes is going to be completely functional or unified in purpose. An octopus has a nerve centre in each of its tentacles that can direct their actions independently of the brain, but that doesn't make each tentacle a different animal, even if sometimes they receive different sensory input and act in conflict with each other.

[Dintiradan]

All of this fails what I call "the smack you in the face test". Walk up to someone who claims that morality/ethics/personal identity/whatever doesn't exist. Lightly smack them in the face. See if they complain.

 

Note this procedure doesn't actually test whether or not these theories are valid, it just tests whether people are hypocrites. There's a very good chance that nihilism and similar theories are correct... but I can't think of a single person on the face of the earth who is really a nihilist.

 

I've always used a geometric analogy when it comes to identity. Take two distinct spheres in a three-dimensional space, and project them onto a plane. They might overlap, but that doesn't mean they are identical, only that they are identical with respect to x and y only. Likewise, you can take a cross-section of a torus and end up with two distinct circles.

 

I admit, the concept of personal identity is not as clear as I'm making it out to be, especially when you come across very real problems like Alzheimer's or other forms of dementia or memory loss. Still, I'm going to take a wild guess and say that you invoke your personal identity on a daily basis. So what's right: your theories, or you?

 

EDIT: Okay, a bunch of people posted as I was writing, and the discussion went in a slightly different direction. Ignore this post as appropriate.

[Lilith]

Originally Posted By: Dintiradan

Note this procedure doesn't actually test whether or not these theories are valid, it just tests whether people are hypocrites. There's a very good chance that nihilism and similar theories are correct... but I can't think of a single person on the face of the earth who is really a nihilist.

okay so you've convinced me that i'm a hypocrite. now what?

i mean surely the correct solution to hypocrisy isn't to also hold wrong beliefs that justify your wrong actions: it's to act in accordance with correct beliefs

[Dintiradan]

Haha, okay, fair enough. You're saying it's better to inconsistently apply a set of correct beliefs than to consistently apply a set of incorrect beliefs. That's fair.

 

One acid test I've used in evaluating systems of thought is whether or not it is consistent, and on further though, I'm realizing that I'm mixing the system in abstract and the system in practice. Hrm, not won over yet, but gonna have to think about this some more. And here I thought I was going to get some work done over Reading Week.

[Harehunter]

Taking your beginning premise, if I understand correctly, since higher organisms, such as humans, are nothing more than a colony of individual cells, each specialized and therefore interdependent on each, we can then extrapolate that model upon the macrocosm, and apply that same concept to the whole of multi-celled organisms, including human beings.

 

If we are able to do that, then why not extrapolate it further to the scale of solar systems, galaxies, and, yes, to the universe as a whole, which in this model is also a living being that is composed not of cells but off galaxies? Would such a being be sentient, just as we are in comparison to the individual cells that make up our body?

 

And if a sentient being can be made up of units that are themselves sentient, would that mean that it is likely that the individual cells in our bodies are capable of sentience to some degree?

 

Please, I am being serious. This sort of philosophic interchange is fascinating.

[Lilith]

i think the best answer i can give to each of your questions is "i don't see why not"

[Harehunter]

Originally Posted By: Lilith

i think the best answer i can give to each of your questions is "i don't see why not"

Does this model of yours explain the unique personalities of each of the component "cells"? For example, our current interaction, where each of us has had different life experiences, leading us to believe in different things, to have different values. This seems to me to fly in the face of "we are all one organism, we are all the same".

[Sudanna]

Originally Posted By: Lilith

Well, okay, let's talk about evolving systems then. We're all descended from a single primordial organism. If you say that changing doesn't make you a different person as long as you retain a continuity with your past, then doesn't that make us all parts of that organism, since we all descended from it?

Parts of it? No. Parts of a universal system of which it is a part, and connected to it? Yes. It is our ancestor, and the beginning of our biological timeline, but it's not really the origin of any person.

I would define my self at any one time as the matter and energy currently directly involved in constituting and operating my mind. The origins of that, as a differentiable (I wanted to say "independent, but that's not really true) system are somewhere during my fetal development.

Originally Posted By: Lilith

Originally Posted By: Dintiradan

Note this procedure doesn't actually test whether or not these theories are valid, it just tests whether people are hypocrites. There's a very good chance that nihilism and similar theories are correct... but I can't think of a single person on the face of the earth who is really a nihilist.

okay so you've convinced me that i'm a hypocrite. now what?

i mean surely the correct solution to hypocrisy isn't to also hold wrong beliefs that justify your wrong actions: it's to act in accordance with correct beliefs

Really, if you find nihilism valid (as I sort of do), there's no reason not to be a hypocrite. There's no reason to act in any particular manner. A nihilist who isn't vegetative is still a nihilist.

[Goldengirl]

Originally Posted By: Harehunter

And if a sentient being can be made up of units that are themselves sentient, would that mean that it is likely that the individual cells in our bodies are capable of sentience to some degree?

In addition to what Lilith said, I'd like to add that there is no reason why 'sentience' should change anything to any degree. It does not exist as a physical reality, but is rather a social abstraction concerning qualities. Thus, in its arbitrariness, there is no reason to give any more weight to it in consideration of the answers to your questions than to any other social construct, such as color.

And if we want to prove nihilists as hypocrites, just look to language itself. Language, which seeks to describe and define an ineffable reality, is embedded with social constructs and cultural norms (never mind the fact that, of course, language is just another one of those constructs and norms). The subject I, the object you, the particular conventions and arcane grammar, all are indicative that even while we renounce objectivity and deconstruct social locations, we still utilize them.

This has led me to the conclusion that the languages and discourses we use to describe reality (and thus ourselves in relation to it) may be evaluated and shifted between, but we still have to use some sort of language and discourse. We can become cognizant of the fact that the strange grammar that structures the mind is biased in one form or another, that it does not accurately describe reality, that our interpretation will always be limited.

That is why I find diversity compelling. Since there are so many forms of interpretation of reality available, there is so much to learn from one another. What may be a mere meteor shower to me may be a reminder of a lost one to another. Each of us perched in our own social statuses at the intersection of our identities - race, sex, gender, class, sexuality, nationality, etc. - all are shaped by these identities to help interpret events, whether as explicitly as a child being told not to drink from a certain water fountain because it is for "Whites Only," or as implicitly as not having to fear from violence consistently.

Also, getting off my soap box, I don't think texting while driving is too big of a deal to require regulation. I text, but only when at stop signs and the like; it seems to be the norm with everyone I've asked that this is widely done and acceptable.

[Alorael at Large]

Harehunter, having a personality does not mean you are an individual in any meaningful way. We could all be four dimensional projections into what we recognize as spacetime of the equivalents of tentacles of a single multi-dimensional entity. This is even consistent with some religious views. But if we're all one thing, morality becomes very hard to evaluate. Is killing someone worse than clipping your toenails? Does life have any meaning at all?

 

Most people don't rely on these systems because they fail all their moral intuition tests. They also lead to systems we don't particularly want to live in. I may have no moral value if I'm a projection, but my subjective self still desires continuity of unharmed existence.

 

I prefer to sidestep sticky issues of personhood entirely, although sentience remains important. (Note: not sapience, sentience!) If you take utilitarianism as your basic ethical principle, it doesn't really matter whether you are the same person now that you were then. What matters is whether your actions now will result in more happiness among future entities; you yourself have no special place anyway, so there's no reason to worry about what "you" means.

 

Yes, this does mean that overeating at 20 is an immoral act, and a utilitarian legal system could allow prosecution for it. And it would support you[50] time traveling to sue you[20], potentially. There are also reasons why such a system would lead to reduced overall happiness and should be avoided.

 

—Alorael, who notes that this is the underpinning for preventing people from talking on the phone. The loss of liberty is small, and for your own good as well as everyone else's. The result is better outcomes. And since phones are well analyzed, recognizable, and probably the most commonly used distraction, banning them specifically leads to good outcomes. Banning other things might, but the complications of enforcement might make it not worthwhile.

[Lilith]

Originally Posted By: This Divine Alphabet

Yes, this does mean that overeating at 20 is an immoral act, and a utilitarian legal system could allow prosecution for it. And it would support you[50] time traveling to sue you[20], potentially. There are also reasons why such a system would lead to reduced overall happiness and should be avoided.

of course, to a utilitarian, whether something is wrong and whether it should be punished are mostly separate questions anyway

[Alorael at Large]

Yes. But since most justice systems do not have a clear grasp on why they are meting out punishments at all, much less how to normalize them, I'll take it.

 

—Alorael, who acknowledges that utilitarianism finds it simultaneously appropriate to apply draconian punishments and to let all individuals off easy if they won't be repeat offenders and no one else will learn that there are no stiff consequences. Punishment for punishment's sake is a weakness of the criminal justice system. Perhaps it's a necessary flaw, but there's certainly not a lot of effort put into minimizing it.

[Soul of Wit]

Impressive topic drift here. I'm surprisingly libertarian on the issue of distracted driving. If we're going to limit liberties then I would prefer a law which puts the judgment in the traffic cop's lap. The officer can pull you over if they believe that a distraction is interfering with your driving. Maybe these laws already exist in most (all) states? Basically, I'm against primary enforcement without evidence of distraction. This is tougher on the police and the courts, but so be it.

 

On the other hand, I favor both seatbelt laws and mandatory helmets for motorcyclists. In my state, medical coverage via auto insurance is unlimited. That is marvelous when you are injured, but we have to reduce the most expensive injuries. Hence, my stance on seatbelts and helmets.

[Callie]

This is probably why I left my sanity here and mostly stayed put: discussions about minor policy issues can digress into philosophical debates and vice versa. Fluffy turtles!

 

What's fun about philosophy is that my views don't fall neatly into any main philosophical doctrine. I guess you could call me a mathematical nihilist objectivist atheist, but that's too verbose and mostly incoherent. Even as a theist I was still mostly nihilist (i.e. the Old Testament book of Ecclesiastes, which starts off by declaring that "everything is utterly meaningless").

 

--

 

As to the original topic: I'm pretty sure my views are exceptionally unusual so I'm mostly musing here. I don't think the government has any vested interest in preventing people from harming themselves, as long as said action does not directly* harm anyone else; I don't agree with seatbelt or helmet laws. If a person's actions directly harm someone else then said action should obviously restricted, but this should also generally apply to actions which have a high relative probability of harming someone else. In my opinion the risk incurred by texting while driving warrants a restriction, because the probability of causing harm increases dramatically. The point at which an action's probability of causing harm warrants restriction is arbitrary, so that argument cannot be applied equally to all actions. I know I can't do so much as lift a water bottle out of the console without diverting some of my attention, and I don't believe people who claim this isn't the case while texting.

 

*I'm using the word "directly" here for simplicity; I don't think government should be limited to interfering strictly in cases of direct harm, but expounding upon that would require a much longer explanation.

 

[Sudanna]

I more or less agree with Excalibur's reasoning as far as texting and driving.

[Khoth]

Originally Posted By: Soul of Wit

On the other hand, I favor both seatbelt laws and mandatory helmets for motorcyclists. In my state, medical coverage via auto insurance is unlimited. That is marvelous when you are injured, but we have to reduce the most expensive injuries. Hence, my stance on seatbelts and helmets.

I suspect that seatbelts and helmets actually increase the costs of injuries. Dying is cheap.

I'm in favour of laws forcing people to wear seatbelts and not text, because it's human nature to be really bad at judging rare but catastrophic risks*. Someone texting while driving is far more likely to be pulled over than to crash, so the existence of the law makes people less likely to do something stupid.

* There's evidence I can't be bothered looking up that increasing the penalty for a crime has very little effect on crime rates compared to increasing the chance that a criminal will be caught. It's the same thing.

[Alorael at Large]

Dying is cheap, but gruesome injuries are expensive. I'd rather not have people thrown clear from a cost perspective.

 

—Alorael, who is fairly okay with regulating something if society might be picking up the costs. And with America's widespread lack of health insurance, it often is.

[A less presumptuous name.]

Originally Posted By: Soul of Wit

I would prefer a law which puts the judgment in the traffic cop's lap. The officer can pull you over if they believe that a distraction is interfering with your driving.

I was talking with some older guys at work earlier tonight about police and their authority. While most cops are responsible and reasonable, there will always be those with inferiority/superiority issues and the like. Those cops would then be able to use "judgement crimes" like your idea to harass people they don't like, or just to let off some steam on a bad day.


Excalibur, I mostly agree with what you say about when the government can regulate behaviors. It may please you to know that, at least in Maryland, seatbelt laws are only a secondary offense. You can't be pulled over for not wearing a seatbelt, so as long as you don't commit any primary offenses, you're fine without a seatbelt.

[keira]

Originally Posted By: Master1

While most cops are responsible and reasonable, there will always be those with inferiority/superiority issues and the like.

Yeah, and there'll always be that guy in the Pentagon who could snap and hit the big red button; the trick is to keep those people out of the system. No, you can't get them all, there will always be corruption and the like, but it is possible to put those people in positions where they cannot do as much harm.

[Lilith]

given that people are already routinely pulled over for Driving While Black under the current system, how do you propose to give police even more discretion without it being abused

[Sarachim]

Originally Posted By: Lilith

given that people are already routinely pulled over for Driving While Black under the current system, how do you propose to give police even more discretion without it being abused

black police

[Lilith]

Originally Posted By: Sarachim

black police

this helps less than one might think

[Rowen]

Originally Posted By: Just what the doctor ordered

Yeah, and there'll always be that guy in the Pentagon who could snap and hit the big red button; the trick is to keep those people out of the system.

[Callie]

Being a member of a minority doesn't mean you can't hold subconscious (?) prejudices against said minority, mostly because those prejudices are prevalent in the wider culture, even if they aren't overt. Additionally, prejudice need not be limited to race. A middle class black officer can discriminate against a poor black driver. An officer's judgement can also be affected by the prejudices of his or her coworkers.

 

 

Originally Posted By: Lilith

given that people are already routinely pulled over for Driving While Black under the current system, how do you propose to give police even more discretion without it being abused

Nobody can best Lilith when it comes to improv satire.

[Sarachim]

Originally Posted By: Rowen

Originally Posted By: Just what the doctor ordered

Yeah, and there'll always be that guy in the Pentagon who could snap and hit the big red button; the trick is to keep those people out of the system.

Rowen, I don't think it's quite fair to condemn the whole program because of a single slip-up.

[Dantius]

Originally Posted By: Just what the doctor ordered

Yeah, and there'll always be that guy in the Pentagon who could snap and hit the big red button; the trick is to keep those people out of the system. No, you can't get them all, there will always be corruption and the like, but it is possible to put those people in positions where they cannot do as much harm.

That's exactly what a pinko water-fluoridating commie would say!

[Lilith]

Originally Posted By: Excalibur

An officer's judgement can also be affected by the prejudices of his or her coworkers.

Yeah, to be serious again for a minute, this is a big problem in real life: research on minority police officers shows that they do tend to feel peer pressure not to be seen as "going easy" on the minority they're a member of.

[Soul of Wit]

Originally Posted By: Master1

Originally Posted By: Soul of Wit

I would prefer a law which puts the judgment in the traffic cop's lap. The officer can pull you over if they believe that a distraction is interfering with your driving.

I was talking with some older guys at work earlier tonight about police and their authority. While most cops are responsible and reasonable, there will always be those with inferiority/superiority issues and the like. Those cops would then be able to use "judgement crimes" like your idea to harass people they don't like, or just to let off some steam on a bad day. ...

I see police as a necessary evil. The job has far too high a correlation with abuse of power. The bad apples exist, regardless of the laws they are called upon to enforce. Taking discretion away from police doesn't make the bad apples magically disappear.