The Morality of Speeding

I think that if you're willfully disregarding the potential consequences to others that might come from operating a dangerous vehicle in a risky, reckless manner, you're probably being immoral.But that can happen under the speed limit, too. So I wouldn't say that speeding is strictly immoral on its face. I would say that reckless disregard for the consequences of your actions on other people is.

Or, say, the prohibition of dominoes-playing on Sundays?What on Earth makes you think that laws aren't completely arbitrary, NJ?Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

Sure, but I don't think that why is usually "morality", except maybe in the really obvious things like "no murdering people" and "theft is bad." The justification for most laws is some perceived social need, or else a politician making his contributors happy.Maybe we have differing ideas about what constitutes "morality" but laws in America are justified by their secular purpose, not by their similarity to the morality of one or another religion.Or, at least, according to the Constitution it's supposed to work like that. The simple truth of the matter is that most laws are "justified" simply because politicians thought it would be good for their careers if they were passed. Why is there a law against dominoes on Sunday? Because the law makers passed that law.That's fairly arbitrary in my view. So, in your view, it's immoral for three single women to live together? That's a moral infraction - as long as its happening in Miami, but in Manhattan it would be ok?I don't get what "morality" means to you. Why would it be moral in Manhattan and immoral in Miami? That doesn't make any sense. It seems like you're just saying "whatever politicians say is immoral, is immoral." What? Haven't politicians - particularly right-wing ones - been exposed as probably the worst people to trust to make determinations of what's moral and what's not?

Isn't that like saying the moral obligation of a screwdriver is to turn screws?We elect politicians to enact justifiable laws. Is it their moral obligation to do so? I think that's a bit of a stretch, personally. I mean, does that mean that the members of the minority party in Congress are failing some moral obligation? Should we have a law against lawmakers not making any laws? It seems like construing this as a "moral" question heads us to someplace ridiculous pretty quickly. Sure, and the whole point of a screwdriver is to turn screws. I don't think that has anything to do with morality. Nothing implicit about it; every major religion claims, as loudly as it can, that it has the sole monopoly on arbitrating human morality. So why tar them with the same brush? I agree that prostitution, being a disease issue as well as an issue of human exploitation, is something society has an interest in regulating. Women living together? I don't see society's interest, there.And I don't see it as a moral issue in either case. I see it as society creating the tools that it needs to survive and prosper. Society needs to turn screws? Society creates screwdrivers. Society needs to regulate a social phenomenon? Society creates laws.I don't see that morality has anything at all to do with it. Indeed I'm scared to death of the idea of equivocating law with morality, because that torpedoes the basis to oppose an unjust law. How can we morally oppose an unjust law when laws are the same as morals?I understand that authoritarians like you don't even understand the question, of course.

I don't see what oaths have to do with it. So ban prostitution. I still don't see the justification for the law then or now. It's not like prostitution is a legally-ambiguous situation. Somehow in the year 2007 we're able to crack down on brothels without having to inconvenience sorority girls or whatever. That's a lot of your assertions, but I don't see much evidence. If laws are based on morality only because you assert that they are so, I'm not finding that especially compelling. But if laws are always moral, if laws indeed define morality, how can such a pronouncement be made? As I predicted - you don't even understand the question. And I understand further that there's plenty of people on the other side who want the exact same thing.So the solution, as represented in the US constitution, was to take morality out of the equation, since none of us can agree on precisely what is moral and immoral. Not precisely enough to make laws about it, anyway.Sure, I want to avoid being in the position where the law makes me do something I think is immoral, or where conduct I feel is moral is punished as immorality by the state. I imagine that's what most people want. The solution there is to recognize that morality is personal but laws are secular tools of society, tools society uses to shape itself, and to not cast laws as moral issues.People have to come to an individual morality. Laws have to be something we all (or we most, anyway) agree on. Thus, they must be estranged from moral issues. When have you even been libertarian about anything?

I don't think anybody who's never lived in Minnesota is in a position to judge the necessity of heated seats, I'm sorry.

What I find really comfortable are the seat warmers that work by burning endangered species alive.

That's exactly how I justify it. That, and the oh-so-pleasing warming sensation around my nether regions as I drive 2 blocks to the store to buy one item.In my gigantic SUV. Doesn't even have a gas cap, just a slot for $100 bills.

Nice tip. I'll probably have to use baby pandas, though, so they can fit into the burner under the seat. Not a lot of room down there. (Right now I'm using some peregrine falcons I boxed up back before you couldn't find them anymore.)