In the wrong but not in the wrong

[Angra Mainyu]

That's pretty much a settled question. If it is wrong to cause harm to others, desiring to and deliberately creating conditions which lead another person to harm which would not have occurred otherwise, is wrong in every moral code with which I am familiar.

Almost impossible to cause harm to others without causing harm to oneself at freeway speeds leads me to the conclusion that the idea of causing harm by restricting view of obstacles is foolhardy more than morally anything. Is it morally wrong to take chances? If so, what are the parameters one needs satisfy for the chance taking to be morally wrong to another?

Our ability to react is much slower than the capacity of our cars to respond. It seems to me that both the 'causing' driver and the 'targeted' driver share similar risks in such 'choices'.

It's wrong because he behaved in that manner (i.e., he modified how he otherwise would have behaved) with the specific intent that the second driver crashes, and the first driver had no justification for that behavior.

As for the parameters, I don't have a theory to offer. But then again, no one has a full correct moral theory to offer.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Morality That Enables the Immoral

I'm not sure how to classify a particular wrongful behavior to which perhaps only a rare few would instinctively view the wrong-doer as being at least partially responsible for the consequences of the wrong-doers actions--I guess. It can get a little convoluted, as I direct and redirect blame, fault, and responsibility, so let me give an example.

I'm going to give three scenarios and compare and contrast them before I delve into the specifics. I'm doing this to keep the discussion grounded.

Scenario 1) you're driving and notice an obstacle in your lane ahead. There are no oncoming cars and within a reasonable distance before the object, you slowly steer towards the other lane. There is a car following you at a safe distance behind. As you progress through your maneuver, the driver behind you begins to realize that you're not just drifting into the other lane but rather avoiding an upcoming object--that could perhaps cause serious damage if hit. The driver follows your route and both vehicles safely go around the object. Let's say the speed is 55 MPH.

Scenario 2) just as in the first scenario, you're driving and notice an obstacle in your lane ahead. Also, there are no oncoming cars. A major difference in this scenario is that the driver behind you is obnoxious. He has been driving erratically. Not drunk. Just clearly in a hurry. He gets really close to you. You know the type--look in the rear view mirror and you're like dang, I can't even see their headlights kind. It's daylight. Now, here is a similarity that you should make particular note of: within a reasonable distance before the object, you slowly steer towards the other lane. That's important.

Scenario 3) you're pissed. You are upset with this driver behind you. You are a very skilled driver and decide to do something that you believe might result in making sure he gets what he deserves. Let's look at some similarities and differences. Just as it was in the first two scenarios, you're driving and notice an obstacle in your lane ahead ... and there are no oncoming cars. The first scenario had a good safe driver behind you following at a safe distance, but this third scenario shares a commonality with scenario 2: a driver that came up on you at a high rate of speed and began tailgating you very (very) closely.

So far, scenario's 2 and 3 are pretty much the same except that in this scenario, you're pissed and plan on payback for dangerously rushing you down the road. Here's the action on your part (in this hypothetical scenario) that differs from the first two scenarios. In the others examples, there was a reasonable distance before you began to slowly steer towards the other lane. In this example, you maintained your 55MPH speed and approached the object and resisted the temptation to change your trajectory. You waited and waited and as the intensity built up knowing you would soon have to react, you veered very hard at the very last 1/5 of a second. You never slowed down, you never sped up, and you did not hit the object. The car behind you, well, it did.

That's exactly what you hoped would happen.

I don't want the opening post to be too terribly long, so I'll go ahead and post to see what initial reactions I get. Who is to blame? Who is responsible? Who is at fault? Did the front driver cause the collision? Is there a shared responsibility (legal or moral)?

Off the cuff, I'm thinking the back driver is legally responsible for the collision but the front driver is morally responsible. What the front driver did was wrong, and had he not done that, the irresponsible back driver would never had to suffer the consequences of driving too closely.

There's no such thing as being a dogooder for bad people, being humane for the subhuman.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Who Benefits If We Don't Go Out of Our Way to Punish the Enemies of Society?

Seldom, true. But this is an open and honest confession. The idea here isn't to establish or even presume truth but rather to assume truth, for the issue isn't proving wrong-doing but determining if it's wrong-doing given the truthful conveyance of facts.

That's pretty much a settled question. If it is wrong to cause harm to others, desiring to and deliberately creating conditions which lead another person to harm which would not have occurred otherwise, is wrong in every moral code with which I am familiar.

Better to harm the reckless driver. Otherwise, he would continue in his anti-social behavior and harm others. His future victims who are careful drivers themselves are the ones who should be protected.

 

[Bronzeage]

That's pretty much a settled question. If it is wrong to cause harm to others, desiring to and deliberately creating conditions which lead another person to harm which would not have occurred otherwise, is wrong in every moral code with which I am familiar.

Better to harm the reckless driver. Otherwise, he would continue in his anti-social behavior and harm others. His future victims who are careful drivers themselves are the ones who should be protected.

This is the "Everyman is an arm of God" postulate, first expressed by Mendacious. In the following centuries, most people discredited it as simply excusing asshole behavior, by saying, "the asshole deserved it."

 

[bilby]

I'm not sure how to classify a particular wrongful behavior to which perhaps only a rare few would instinctively view the wrong-doer as being at least partially responsible for the consequences of the wrong-doers actions--I guess. It can get a little convoluted, as I direct and redirect blame, fault, and responsibility, so let me give an example.

I'm going to give three scenarios and compare and contrast them before I delve into the specifics. I'm doing this to keep the discussion grounded.

Scenario 1) you're driving and notice an obstacle in your lane ahead. There are no oncoming cars and within a reasonable distance before the object, you slowly steer towards the other lane. There is a car following you at a safe distance behind. As you progress through your maneuver, the driver behind you begins to realize that you're not just drifting into the other lane but rather avoiding an upcoming object--that could perhaps cause serious damage if hit. The driver follows your route and both vehicles safely go around the object. Let's say the speed is 55 MPH.

Scenario 2) just as in the first scenario, you're driving and notice an obstacle in your lane ahead. Also, there are no oncoming cars. A major difference in this scenario is that the driver behind you is obnoxious. He has been driving erratically. Not drunk. Just clearly in a hurry. He gets really close to you. You know the type--look in the rear view mirror and you're like dang, I can't even see their headlights kind. It's daylight. Now, here is a similarity that you should make particular note of: within a reasonable distance before the object, you slowly steer towards the other lane. That's important.

Scenario 3) you're pissed. You are upset with this driver behind you. You are a very skilled driver and decide to do something that you believe might result in making sure he gets what he deserves. Let's look at some similarities and differences. Just as it was in the first two scenarios, you're driving and notice an obstacle in your lane ahead ... and there are no oncoming cars. The first scenario had a good safe driver behind you following at a safe distance, but this third scenario shares a commonality with scenario 2: a driver that came up on you at a high rate of speed and began tailgating you very (very) closely.

So far, scenario's 2 and 3 are pretty much the same except that in this scenario, you're pissed and plan on payback for dangerously rushing you down the road. Here's the action on your part (in this hypothetical scenario) that differs from the first two scenarios. In the others examples, there was a reasonable distance before you began to slowly steer towards the other lane. In this example, you maintained your 55MPH speed and approached the object and resisted the temptation to change your trajectory. You waited and waited and as the intensity built up knowing you would soon have to react, you veered very hard at the very last 1/5 of a second. You never slowed down, you never sped up, and you did not hit the object. The car behind you, well, it did.

That's exactly what you hoped would happen.

I don't want the opening post to be too terribly long, so I'll go ahead and post to see what initial reactions I get. Who is to blame? Who is responsible? Who is at fault? Did the front driver cause the collision? Is there a shared responsibility (legal or moral)?

Off the cuff, I'm thinking the back driver is legally responsible for the collision but the front driver is morally responsible. What the front driver did was wrong, and had he not done that, the irresponsible back driver would never had to suffer the consequences of driving too closely.

There's no such thing as being a dogooder for bad people, being humane for the subhuman.

Of course there isn't; because there is no such thing as a bad person, or as a subhuman.

All people sometimes do bad things; and some people often do bad things, but even Hitler loved his dogs.

'Subhuman' is a word that, like 'unicorn' or 'hobbit' describes something that doesn't exist in reality, even if some people really, really wish they did.

 

[fromderinside]

It's wrong because he behaved in that manner (i.e., he modified how he otherwise would have behaved) with the specific intent that the second driver crashes, and the first driver had no justification for that behavior.

As for the parameters, I don't have a theory to offer. But then again, no one has a full correct moral theory to offer.

Ah, but according to her responsibility, the second driver needed to adjust her vehicle to obviate what driver one might be doing making his intent and actions therefrom meaningless.

As former President Carter said every one has sinned in their thoughts. Since actions need to result in possible consequences for there to be crime, really, need this go on?

 

[Angra Mainyu]

It's wrong because he behaved in that manner (i.e., he modified how he otherwise would have behaved) with the specific intent that the second driver crashes, and the first driver had no justification for that behavior.

As for the parameters, I don't have a theory to offer. But then again, no one has a full correct moral theory to offer.

Ah, but according to her responsibility, the second driver needed to adjust her vehicle to obviate what driver one might be doing making his intent and actions therefrom meaningless.

As former President Carter said every one has sinned in their thoughts. Since actions need to result in possible consequences for there to be crime, really, need this go on?

I'm sorry, but I don't understand that. Are you objecting to any of my points?

 

[untermensche]

One scenario is clearly criminal behavior.

If I was a prosecutor I would seek attempted murder.

A planned action where other action was clearly possible that could reasonably be thought to cause severe harm to another.