RVRayRay
610 posts


I oppose any laws requiring cars to have technology that shuts them down if the driver is drunk. The reason I oppose them is that I utterly reject the moral logic on which they are based.
The moral logic for these laws is that they will kill some innocent people, but they will save more people than they kill. Sure, there will be the person who was drugged by someone trying to harm them and whose car doesn't let them flee, and there will be the person who is trying to rush an injured person to the hospital whose demeanor will cause their car not to work. But there will be lots more people who tried to drive drunk who will be stopped. And innocent people they would have crashed into will be saved.
But we don't get to actually kill innocent people to save other people. Suppose there was a doctor would save a dozen of innocent people every year because he's the best doctor there is, but in exchange he demands the right to kill one innocent person every year who would otherwise have lived. We would be moral monsters if we hired such a doctor. We don't get to play god like that.
This law will actively kill some innocent people every year. We shouldn't pass laws that actively kill innocent people, even to save a greater number of other innocent people.
English


@SteveLovesAmmo It’s all subjective. How do you measure them against one another? Queen
English

@AlTheBoss03 Going with my dad to Riverfront Stadium to watch the Big Red Machine take on the Pirates in 1975
English

@e_cdalton I’m 6’2 205 lbs with visible abs, serratus and intercostals, but sure…..I’m obese
English





















