3 ms·

I'm not even making that claim here, come on. If being in traffic is so dangerous to your family then your protective response should be to reduce their exposu

I'm not even making that claim here, come on. If being in traffic is so dangerous to your family then your protective response should be to reduce their exposure to it as much as possible. People in this thread are jumping straight to their right to increase the overall danger of driving, and put more of that danger outside their personal sphere, before taking any other actions to reduce or mitigate it. They certainly have that right under the current arrangement. And I'm not saying all evaluations or decisions along these lines are immoral, I can approach this with understanding of real conditions and nuance. But along with that right comes being considered morally culpable or even cowardly for exercising it.

dahfizz 3y ago
Let's take as a given that heavier cars are more dangerous to be around. An individual who needs to commute by car has two options: 1) put themselves and their family in greater danger by driving a lighter car. 2) protect themselves and their family but increase total danger to society by driving a heavier car. I am unconvinced that there is an obvious morally correct answer. What are one's moral obligations to themselves, their families, and their society? How are these prioritized? You can't just say "don't drive lul". It's literally not an option. We should have better public transportation, but we don't.