Right to endanger?

[nimda]

Let me rephrase: do I have the right to endanger your life? Is it only morally wrong if you actually get hurt?

Can the proposed ethical rule, "No one may endanger the life of another person," be applied universally to all people without creating any logical contradictions?

No moral is absolute. But if the only problems we have in the world are gray areas like, "is it OK to lie about your wife's whereabouts if someone wants to kill her?" then we shall hardly need philosophers at all.

[1715188324]

1715188324

[1715188324]

1715188324

[1715188324]

1715188324

[1715188324]

1715188324

[1715188324]

1715188324

[myrkul]

Let me rephrase: do I have the right to endanger your life? Is it only morally wrong if you actually get hurt?

Can the proposed ethical rule, "No one may endanger the life of another person," be applied universally to all people without creating any logical contradictions?

No moral is absolute. But if the only problems we have in the world are gray areas like, "is it OK to lie about your wife's whereabouts if someone wants to kill her?" then we shall hardly need philosophers at all.

So is that a no?

[Dalkore]

Wow OK. I must have a problem with making myself clear. The question had nothing to do with anarchism or airplanes

Let me rephrase: do I have the right to endanger your life? Is it only morally wrong if you actually get hurt?

The example you used was pointing a revolver at a person. That is clearly not endangering someone's life, that is threatening someone's life.

Let me ask you a question: Two identical roads. Absolutely identical; pavement conditions, curves, lane width, everything. The only difference is that one has a sign with "Speed limit: 50" on it, and the other has a sign that says "Speed limit: 70." Is a car going 60 down one road endangering people's lives more than by doing the same on the other?

Yes you would be endangering people on the 50mph road.  The people traveling on the 50mph and assuming they are following the posted limit, are under the assumption that others are as well so if an accident happened with the person traveling 10mph more would statistically cause more harm than two cars traveling at 50mph.

Also if you traveled slower on the 70mph, you would endanger yourself more.

[myrkul]

Wow OK. I must have a problem with making myself clear. The question had nothing to do with anarchism or airplanes

Let me rephrase: do I have the right to endanger your life? Is it only morally wrong if you actually get hurt?

The example you used was pointing a revolver at a person. That is clearly not endangering someone's life, that is threatening someone's life.

Let me ask you a question: Two identical roads. Absolutely identical; pavement conditions, curves, lane width, everything. The only difference is that one has a sign with "Speed limit: 50" on it, and the other has a sign that says "Speed limit: 70." Is a car going 60 down one road endangering people's lives more than by doing the same on the other?

Yes you would be endangering people on the 50mph road.  The people traveling on the 50mph and assuming they are following the posted limit, are under the assumption that others are as well so if an accident happened with the person traveling 10mph more would statistically cause more harm than two cars traveling at 50mph.

Also if you traveled slower on the 70mph, you would endanger yourself more.

So, as was said earlier, the speed difference is the key, not the speed itself.

[Dalkore]

Wow OK. I must have a problem with making myself clear. The question had nothing to do with anarchism or airplanes

Let me rephrase: do I have the right to endanger your life? Is it only morally wrong if you actually get hurt?

The example you used was pointing a revolver at a person. That is clearly not endangering someone's life, that is threatening someone's life.

Let me ask you a question: Two identical roads. Absolutely identical; pavement conditions, curves, lane width, everything. The only difference is that one has a sign with "Speed limit: 50" on it, and the other has a sign that says "Speed limit: 70." Is a car going 60 down one road endangering people's lives more than by doing the same on the other?

Yes you would be endangering people on the 50mph road.  The people traveling on the 50mph and assuming they are following the posted limit, are under the assumption that others are as well so if an accident happened with the person traveling 10mph more would statistically cause more harm than two cars traveling at 50mph.

Also if you traveled slower on the 70mph, you would endanger yourself more.

So, as was said earlier, the speed difference is the key, not the speed itself.

Speed matters as well, did you think it didn't    The faster you go, the probability you will die or kill someone in a crash inches closer to 100%.

[justusranvier]

No moral is absolute. But if the only problems we have in the world are gray areas like, "is it OK to lie about your wife's whereabouts if someone wants to kill her?" then we shall hardly need philosophers at all.

Subjective personal preferences that people dress up as morality in order to bully and control people are not absolute.

[myrkul]

Wow OK. I must have a problem with making myself clear. The question had nothing to do with anarchism or airplanes

Let me rephrase: do I have the right to endanger your life? Is it only morally wrong if you actually get hurt?

The example you used was pointing a revolver at a person. That is clearly not endangering someone's life, that is threatening someone's life.

Let me ask you a question: Two identical roads. Absolutely identical; pavement conditions, curves, lane width, everything. The only difference is that one has a sign with "Speed limit: 50" on it, and the other has a sign that says "Speed limit: 70." Is a car going 60 down one road endangering people's lives more than by doing the same on the other?

Yes you would be endangering people on the 50mph road.  The people traveling on the 50mph and assuming they are following the posted limit, are under the assumption that others are as well so if an accident happened with the person traveling 10mph more would statistically cause more harm than two cars traveling at 50mph.

Also if you traveled slower on the 70mph, you would endanger yourself more.

So, as was said earlier, the speed difference is the key, not the speed itself.

Speed matters as well, did you think it didn't    The faster you go, the probability you will die or kill someone in a crash inches closer to 100%.

But of course, faster accidents are more lethal. But the car in question was traveling at a constant speed, down consistent roadways. You claim that both actions are risking a crash. Yet one action is illegal, and the other legal.

[JoelKatz]

The faster you go, the probability you will die or kill someone in a crash inches closer to 100%.

Per unit time, yes. But the time you spend to travel a given distance goes down. The longer you spend on a road, the higher your chances that some drunk will plow into you.

A road owner has the right to set whatever speed limit they want for their road, assuming they haven't contractually bound themselves otherwise. If the government is going to own and operate roads, then it will have to set the rules for the use of those roads. I think governments have historically done a poor job of setting sensible speed limits. I think this has made roads more dangerous, caused significant disrespect for the law, discouraged technological innovation, and wasted huge amounts of people's time.

Do I have the right to load a single bullet into a revolver, spin the chamber, aim at your head, and pull the trigger?

I think most legal systems would decide that you don't have that right. I don't think any ethical principle compels one decision or the other. Certainly you have the right to endanger people to some extent -- you couldn't do anything if you couldn't endanger people at all. But legal systems have to draw the line somewhere and that certainly seems over the line to me.

Individuals defending themselves and legal systems don't have to wait for harm to be done to act. You don't have to watch your mentally unstable neighbor accumulate a massive hoard of weapons and explosives and wait until he detonates them to act against him.

[myrkul]

The faster you go, the probability you will die or kill someone in a crash inches closer to 100%.

Per unit time, yes. But the time you spend to travel a given distance goes down. The longer you spend on a road, the higher your chances that some drunk will plow into you.

A road owner has the right to set whatever speed limit they want for their road, assuming they haven't contractually bound themselves otherwise. If the government is going to own and operate roads, then it will have to set the rules for the use of those roads. I think governments have historically done a poor job of setting sensible speed limits. I think this has made roads more dangerous, caused significant disrespect for the law, discouraged technological innovation, and wasted huge amounts of people's time.

Because they were answering the wrong question.
http://www.thisistrue.com/blog-asking_the_right_questions.html

[TheButterZone]

Let me rephrase: do I have the right to endanger your life? Is it only morally wrong if you actually get hurt?

Can the proposed ethical rule, "No one may endanger the life of another person," be applied universally to all people without creating any logical contradictions?

No moral is absolute. But if the only problems we have in the world are gray areas like, "is it OK to lie about your wife's whereabouts if someone wants to kill her?" then we shall hardly need philosophers at all.

If someone wants to kill your wife, it's imperative that you lie about her whereabouts to anyone who asks, as that lie is an act of self*-defense. Unless your wife is in a bunker and ready to shoot anyone who tries to storm it to kill her, then I'd follow her directive and not lie about where she is.

*Meaning any innocent human being, not just 'yourself'.

[Dalkore]

Wow OK. I must have a problem with making myself clear. The question had nothing to do with anarchism or airplanes

Let me rephrase: do I have the right to endanger your life? Is it only morally wrong if you actually get hurt?

The example you used was pointing a revolver at a person. That is clearly not endangering someone's life, that is threatening someone's life.

Let me ask you a question: Two identical roads. Absolutely identical; pavement conditions, curves, lane width, everything. The only difference is that one has a sign with "Speed limit: 50" on it, and the other has a sign that says "Speed limit: 70." Is a car going 60 down one road endangering people's lives more than by doing the same on the other?

Yes you would be endangering people on the 50mph road.  The people traveling on the 50mph and assuming they are following the posted limit, are under the assumption that others are as well so if an accident happened with the person traveling 10mph more would statistically cause more harm than two cars traveling at 50mph.

Also if you traveled slower on the 70mph, you would endanger yourself more.

So, as was said earlier, the speed difference is the key, not the speed itself.

Speed matters as well, did you think it didn't    The faster you go, the probability you will die or kill someone in a crash inches closer to 100%.

But of course, faster accidents are more lethal. But the car in question was traveling at a constant speed, down consistent roadways. You claim that both actions are risking a crash. Yet one action is illegal, and the other legal.

I am suggesting that is there is a posted Speed Limit and your exceeding it, you are in fact breaking the law of that locality. 

[Snipes777]

In a society of private ownership, this question becomes irrelevant. A private property owner can limit the speed of anyone on their property as they choose and can forbid you from entering their property if you exceed a speed limit (unless you pay a fine or fee of some kind). Speed limits do not need to be universalized. They only are bullshit because they are not subject to market forces and they do not raise or lower based on people's preferences when evaluating risk of harm weighed against efficiency of travel.

Pointing an empty gun at someone can be a threat if the person doesn't know it's not loaded. Just because the shooter doesn't know if it's loaded as well doesn't make it better. A threat is a threat that cannot be avoided by the victim. Traveling on a road with certain rules as to how you should travel is chosen by the user. When these rules are determined voluntarily, so many of the problems vanish.

[myrkul]

Wow OK. I must have a problem with making myself clear. The question had nothing to do with anarchism or airplanes

Let me rephrase: do I have the right to endanger your life? Is it only morally wrong if you actually get hurt?

The example you used was pointing a revolver at a person. That is clearly not endangering someone's life, that is threatening someone's life.

Let me ask you a question: Two identical roads. Absolutely identical; pavement conditions, curves, lane width, everything. The only difference is that one has a sign with "Speed limit: 50" on it, and the other has a sign that says "Speed limit: 70." Is a car going 60 down one road endangering people's lives more than by doing the same on the other?

Yes you would be endangering people on the 50mph road.  The people traveling on the 50mph and assuming they are following the posted limit, are under the assumption that others are as well so if an accident happened with the person traveling 10mph more would statistically cause more harm than two cars traveling at 50mph.

Also if you traveled slower on the 70mph, you would endanger yourself more.

So, as was said earlier, the speed difference is the key, not the speed itself.

Speed matters as well, did you think it didn't    The faster you go, the probability you will die or kill someone in a crash inches closer to 100%.

But of course, faster accidents are more lethal. But the car in question was traveling at a constant speed, down consistent roadways. You claim that both actions are risking a crash. Yet one action is illegal, and the other legal.

I am suggesting that is there is a posted Speed Limit and your exceeding it, you are in fact breaking the law of that locality. 

And?

What does an arbitrary number on a sign have to do with endangering lives?

[nimda]

No moral is absolute. But if the only problems we have in the world are gray areas like, "is it OK to lie about your wife's whereabouts if someone wants to kill her?" then we shall hardly need philosophers at all.

Subjective personal preferences that people dress up as morality in order to bully and control people are not absolute.

I completely agree; perhaps we've read the same book on the subject. However I challenge you to come up with a general yet universally applicable moral rule.

In general, the more general a rule, the more edge cases and gray areas there are.

Killing is wrong
Killing is wrong except in self defense
Killing its wrong except in self defense, the defense of other people, or in assisted suicide
Killing its wrong except in self defense, the defense of other people, or in assisted suicide, or when there is no hope for the person to awaken from their coma

Or you can start small and generalize

Killing a single person in self defense when the danger they pose is grave and imminent is right
add a defense of multiple other people clause, a cadaver clause, etc

[myrkul]

No moral is absolute. But if the only problems we have in the world are gray areas like, "is it OK to lie about your wife's whereabouts if someone wants to kill her?" then we shall hardly need philosophers at all.

Subjective personal preferences that people dress up as morality in order to bully and control people are not absolute.

I completely agree; perhaps we've read the same book on the subject. However I challenge you to come up with a general yet universally applicable moral rule.

In general, the more general a rule, the more edge cases and gray areas there are.

Killing is wrong
Killing is wrong except in self defense
Killing its wrong except in self defense, the defense of other people, or in assisted suicide
Killing its wrong except in self defense, the defense of other people, or in assisted suicide, or when there is no hope for the person to awaken from their coma

How about this:
Taking another person's life is wrong.
Taking another person's life is wrong, thus justifying self defense.
Taking another person's life is wrong, thus justifying self defense, but of course you can take your own life, even with help.
Taking another person's life is wrong, thus justifying self defense, but of course you can take your own life, even with help, and artificially sustaining another person's life is not required.

Oh look, no exceptions. In fact, attempting to take another person's life against their will might be seen as a particularly wild form of assisted suicide.

[justusranvier]

I completely agree; perhaps we've read the same book on the subject. However I challenge you to come up with a general yet universally applicable moral rule.

The only acceptable use of violence is self defense.

[420]

I completely agree; perhaps we've read the same book on the subject. However I challenge you to come up with a general yet universally applicable moral rule.

The only acceptable use of violence is self defense.

Does this include having rockets in your car and if someone driving like a maniac you can blast them 200ft behind you before they come up close enough to cause an accident with you

[dscotese]

Wow OK. I must have a problem with making myself clear. The question had nothing to do with anarchism or airplanes

Let me rephrase: do I have the right to endanger your life? Is it only morally wrong if you actually get hurt?

Certainly you have the right to endanger people to some extent -- you couldn't do anything if you couldn't endanger people at all. But legal systems have to draw the line somewhere and that certainly seems over the line to me.

I agree with Joel.  Unfortunately, "Legal system" usually means "Control exerted by thugs who enjoy the benefits of a public brainwashed into thinking they need to be ruled."  I would replace "legal systems" with "individuals", and agree that a 1:6 ratio of killing me is "too endangered" for me to accept (a 6-chambered pistol right)?  If you take me skiing (3:4,000,000 or thereabouts), I wouldn't worry.  If you want to box with me (13:1,000,000 or so) I might decline.  But of course I see nothing wrong with you playing Russian Roulette with anyone else who wants to play.  I do see a problem with forcing me to go skiing or have a boxing match.  So life endangerment isn't the foundation of ethics.  The foundation, at least for voluntaryists (as I call myself) is whether or not the "victim" has a choice.

[TECSHARE]

Even if we are safer because of a law, the law presents several problems because of its nature.  A law is essentially a tool one group (government agents) use to leverage their socially-acceptable tendency to threaten people into exhibiting or avoiding certain behaviors.  The social acceptability of such coercion is the root of the problem.  When this tool (the law) makes things better, society generally uses it to justify the coercion.  Once justified, that coercion slowly but surely turns into tyranny.  When the law makes things worse, well, obviously that's undesirable.

Besides justifying coercion (when a law actually helps), laws also replace reason with fear.  Rather than driving slower because they want to be safe from automobile accidents, people will driver slower because they're afraid of getting caught speeding.  This seems harmless on the face of it, but you end up with tremendous waste and suffering when people operate from fear instead of reason.  Fear leads to "fight or flight", a dilemma in which there is no "relax and enjoy life" or "talk it out" or anything remotely similar to the kinds of human behavior that bring joy to our existence.

There are many philosophical treats for those who brave enough to explore anarchy with an open mind.  Perhaps a tantalizing tip of the ice berg is the fact that if you feel someone is endangering you by driving too fast (or in any other way), it makes sense for you to try to get them to change their behavior.  It makes sense, that is, if you do it through education and persuasion, or even community support if the speeder is sensitive to the judgement of others.  It makes a lot less sense when you rely on guns, fines, jails, and the theft that most people call "taxation".  When you do it that way, it has horrible long term effects.

Most intelligent reply to this dense group of regurgitating ass hats I have seen in a long time. The issue is not whether it is morally correct but whether there should be laws regulating it, possibly causing FURTHER harm to society. Just admit you make the assumption that humans can't control themselves without mommy and daddy government dictating to them. It would save all this misdirection about speed limits and seat belts over and over again like fucking parrots.

The truth is you are in fear, and you expect everyone else to bow to satiate YOUR FEARFULNESS. The problem is internal, I suggest you reexamine yourself, because demanding everyone else change to satiate your fear IS IMMORAL.

[myrkul]

I completely agree; perhaps we've read the same book on the subject. However I challenge you to come up with a general yet universally applicable moral rule.

The only acceptable use of violence is self defense.

Does this include having rockets in your car and if someone driving like a maniac you can blast them 200ft behind you before they come up close enough to cause an accident with you

Can you avoid an accident, by, for instance, driving defensively? Has the other vehicle made it clear that the driver's intention is to hit you? Would, in other words, a crash between your two cars actually be an accident, or a malicious act of destruction?