4 ms·

I haven't killed anyone by any means, so I'm not morally culpable of anything. But my moral obligation to protecting my family supersedes any moral obligation I

by pc86 3y ago

I haven't killed anyone by any means, so I'm not morally culpable of anything. But my moral obligation to protecting my family supersedes any moral obligation I have to protecting strangers.

EatingWithForks 3y ago
By this logic, because I haven't killed anyone drunk driving, I should be allowed to drive drunk. No, it's important to point out hard facts here: by driving a car with less visibility, you become more dangerous to your family and your neighborhood. You don't even protect your family, because you've now entered a vehicle significantly more likely to flip over in an accident-- which you are now more likely to have because you bought a vehicle with reduced capacity to see what is in front of you. Your choice is your choice-- but it's important not to lie to yourself or others about what that choice entails.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- pc86 3y ago
  > By this logic, because I haven't killed anyone drunk driving, I should be allowed to drive drunk. Drunk driving is illegal, having a large vehicle isn't. If it's illegal, I won't do it. And even ignoring that, this isn't what I'm saying. I'm saying that because you haven't killed anyone drunk driving, you're not morally culpable for drunk driving deaths. Which you're not.
  - EatingWithForks 3y ago
    If you drive a larger vehicle, you are taking on the increased risk of hitting other children or your own children. Whether or not you've actually hit a child doesn't change that fact and trying to wiggle out of it through that logic is the same as arguing just because an irresponsible driver hasn't killed anyone means they're actually safer than an irresponsible driver who has. The fundamental attribution is their irresponsibility, not whether or not their irresponsibility has resulted in a consequence for them. similarly, regardless of whether or not you've killed anyone with a larger vehicle, the fact is that larger vehicles pose a greater danger of running over children.
  - jenadine 3y ago
    > Drunk driving is illegal, having a large vehicle isn't. Legality and morality are not the same things.
  - stusmall 3y ago
    I'm noticing you are mixing up "legal" and "moral" a lot in this thread. They are separate concepts. Just because something is legal doesn't mean it is morally right. Morals are something that someone can chose to live by to help them pick between right and wrong. Laws are literally the absolute bare minimum to participate in society without have your rights to property or freedom revoked. Ideally a common societal agreement of morals and ethics should play in laws, but that doesn't always happen. > I'm saying that because you haven't killed anyone drunk driving, you're not morally culpable for drunk driving deaths This is a weird statement... which I guess is true in the narrowest possible meaning. It's true in the way that it is written, but not in a way that matters. If you drive drunk but haven't killed anyone yet you aren't directly culpable for drunk driving deaths.... but it is still an immoral action. Just because it hasn't caused the worst possible results yet doesn't mean it doesn't significantly raise the risk. I think the important thing here is that morals and ethics are a relative concept. It's deeply personal and everyone places there own values on it. You've taken a stance that your absolute responsibility above all else is to your family. If your actions makes things safer for your family at the determent to others then you see that as the moral thing to do. That's valid. You've got the right to the world view but it doesn't change the larger discussion. People will discuss this in a moral lens. Some of them will view your stance as immoral or selfish.
- tzs 3y ago
  Big trucks, big SUVs, and minivans do in fact have a significantly lower death rate for people in the vehicle than do smaller vehicles [1] so if his goal is to lower the chances of his family dying in a car accident he is achieving it. [1] https://www.motortrend.com/news/are-bigger-cars-safer/ https://www.motortrend.com/news/are-bigger-cars-safer/
elil17 3y ago
>my moral obligation to protecting my family supersedes any moral obligation I have to protecting strangers Surely it doesn’t supersede any obligation you have to protecting strangers. If you’d greatly increase the likelihood that you end up killing a pedestrian to only slightly increase the safety of your own family, I think that is morally wrong.
anigbrowl 3y ago
You're rewriting the GP's argument and then responding to that instead of what the person actually wrote. Try again.
- pc86 3y ago
  Maybe you should read my comment they're replying to.
  - anigbrowl 3y ago
    I did. They pointed out a fundamental flaw in that argument which you have declined to address - specifically, the increased risk factors to your own family members from accidents that do not involve collisions with other vehicles.
adamweld 3y ago
This is the dictionary definition of a tragedy of the commons. You must recognize that regardless of your individual decision making, the fact that vehicle sizes have ballooned has made everyone on the road, your family included, much less safe.
asterix_pano 3y ago
Where does it stop though? Are you fine putting everyone else in danger so you feel safe? Are you buying a tank next?
- NoGravitas 3y ago
  I'm sure he would if it were legal.
grayfaced 3y ago
On a statistical macro sense, yes you have.
beej71 3y ago
This is untrue. You have a moral obligation to protect strangers from your car. And a legal one.
- pc86 3y ago
  Not at the expense of my family, I don't.
chr-s 3y ago
It's not moral when all public good is sacrificed for familial benefit.
throwaheyy 3y ago
You are intentionally endangering others to give yourself the "feeling" of protecting your family. That is selfish and immoral.

by pc86 3y ago

I haven't killed anyone by any means, so I'm not morally culpable of anything. But my moral obligation to protecting my family supersedes any moral obligation I have to protecting strangers.

EatingWithForks 3y ago

By this logic, because I haven't killed anyone drunk driving, I should be allowed to drive drunk. No, it's important to point out hard facts here: by driving a car with less visibility, you become more dangerous to your family and your neighborhood. You don't even protect your family, because you've now entered a vehicle significantly more likely to flip over in an accident-- which you are now more likely to have because you bought a vehicle with reduced capacity to see what is in front of you. Your choice is your choice-- but it's important not to lie to yourself or others about what that choice entails.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
pc86 3y ago
> By this logic, because I haven't killed anyone drunk driving, I should be allowed to drive drunk. Drunk driving is illegal, having a large vehicle isn't. If it's illegal, I won't do it. And even ignoring that, this isn't what I'm saying. I'm saying that because you haven't killed anyone drunk driving, you're not morally culpable for drunk driving deaths. Which you're not.
- EatingWithForks 3y ago
  If you drive a larger vehicle, you are taking on the increased risk of hitting other children or your own children. Whether or not you've actually hit a child doesn't change that fact and trying to wiggle out of it through that logic is the same as arguing just because an irresponsible driver hasn't killed anyone means they're actually safer than an irresponsible driver who has. The fundamental attribution is their irresponsibility, not whether or not their irresponsibility has resulted in a consequence for them. similarly, regardless of whether or not you've killed anyone with a larger vehicle, the fact is that larger vehicles pose a greater danger of running over children.
- jenadine 3y ago
  > Drunk driving is illegal, having a large vehicle isn't. Legality and morality are not the same things.
- stusmall 3y ago
  I'm noticing you are mixing up "legal" and "moral" a lot in this thread. They are separate concepts. Just because something is legal doesn't mean it is morally right. Morals are something that someone can chose to live by to help them pick between right and wrong. Laws are literally the absolute bare minimum to participate in society without have your rights to property or freedom revoked. Ideally a common societal agreement of morals and ethics should play in laws, but that doesn't always happen. > I'm saying that because you haven't killed anyone drunk driving, you're not morally culpable for drunk driving deaths This is a weird statement... which I guess is true in the narrowest possible meaning. It's true in the way that it is written, but not in a way that matters. If you drive drunk but haven't killed anyone yet you aren't directly culpable for drunk driving deaths.... but it is still an immoral action. Just because it hasn't caused the worst possible results yet doesn't mean it doesn't significantly raise the risk. I think the important thing here is that morals and ethics are a relative concept. It's deeply personal and everyone places there own values on it. You've taken a stance that your absolute responsibility above all else is to your family. If your actions makes things safer for your family at the determent to others then you see that as the moral thing to do. That's valid. You've got the right to the world view but it doesn't change the larger discussion. People will discuss this in a moral lens. Some of them will view your stance as immoral or selfish.
tzs 3y ago
Big trucks, big SUVs, and minivans do in fact have a significantly lower death rate for people in the vehicle than do smaller vehicles [1] so if his goal is to lower the chances of his family dying in a car accident he is achieving it. [1] https://www.motortrend.com/news/are-bigger-cars-safer/ https://www.motortrend.com/news/are-bigger-cars-safer/

elil17 3y ago

>my moral obligation to protecting my family supersedes any moral obligation I have to protecting strangers Surely it doesn’t supersede any obligation you have to protecting strangers. If you’d greatly increase the likelihood that you end up killing a pedestrian to only slightly increase the safety of your own family, I think that is morally wrong.

anigbrowl 3y ago

You're rewriting the GP's argument and then responding to that instead of what the person actually wrote. Try again.

pc86 3y ago
Maybe you should read my comment they're replying to.
- anigbrowl 3y ago
  I did. They pointed out a fundamental flaw in that argument which you have declined to address - specifically, the increased risk factors to your own family members from accidents that do not involve collisions with other vehicles.

adamweld 3y ago

This is the dictionary definition of a tragedy of the commons. You must recognize that regardless of your individual decision making, the fact that vehicle sizes have ballooned has made everyone on the road, your family included, much less safe.

asterix_pano 3y ago

Where does it stop though? Are you fine putting everyone else in danger so you feel safe? Are you buying a tank next?

NoGravitas 3y ago
I'm sure he would if it were legal.

grayfaced 3y ago

On a statistical macro sense, yes you have.

beej71 3y ago

This is untrue. You have a moral obligation to protect strangers from your car. And a legal one.

pc86 3y ago
Not at the expense of my family, I don't.

chr-s 3y ago

It's not moral when all public good is sacrificed for familial benefit.

throwaheyy 3y ago

You are intentionally endangering others to give yourself the "feeling" of protecting your family. That is selfish and immoral.