5 ms·

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

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/

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/