High and Mighty

[michabo]

Do you think it is moral to engage in a behavior that you enjoy if it will endanger the lives of others if there are safer alternatives available?

At what point do you draw the line?



For a more concrete example, let's say a new sport takes off which results in 6,000 deaths each year. Half of these are people playing the new sport (urban air rifle tag, let's say) but half of these are innocent bystanders. The sport could be played with paintballs, or could be played in special fields, but it is more cool to play it in the city and these people pay the price.

Is this moral? Why or why not?

 

[flicka]

I wouldn't think so. I can't see allowing much of anything for the sake of 'thrills' if it endangers the lives of people who didn't even choose to play.

 

[Skaloop]

Isn't that pretty much one of the standard definitions of immoral? An activity which unduly causes harm to others?

But I also see your point. In your example, half of the deaths are innocent bystanders. Most would see playing urban air-rifle tag as immoral. But, a few innocent bystanders could be killed at a car race, and few would call that immoral.

So there seems that there would be a line drawn based on numbers of killed bsytanders. But I think an even greater line would be drawn at taking reasonable and necessary precautions to safeguard the bystanders. That's where your example fails the test, I think. Using paintballs would greatly reduce bystander risk with minimal impact to the spirit of the game. Driving in a circle might be more fun without all those walls and fences, but they are in place to protect the bystanders.

 

[michabo]

But, a few innocent bystanders could be killed at a car race, and few would call that immoral.

But what if it weren't innocent race attendees, but innocent neighbours?

Would one death a year be immoral?

What if car racing killed three thousand innocent people each year - a 9/11 of innocents every year. Is it immoral now?

So there seems that there would be a line drawn based on numbers of killed bsytanders. But I think an even greater line would be drawn at taking reasonable and necessary precautions to safeguard the bystanders.

These examples are just for fun or for vanity. You don't need to play urban air rifle tag, you don't need to drive suped up cars in circles. It's a lifestyle issue which results in the deaths of other people.

 

[michabo]

I wouldn't think so. I can't see allowing much of anything for the sake of 'thrills' if it endangers the lives of people who didn't even choose to play.

Can you imagine any circumstance where it might? You don't need to use my example, that was just to get the conversation started.

 

[jayem]

But what if it weren't innocent race attendees, but innocent neighbours?

Would one death a year be immoral?

Of course. I'm quite libertarian at heart, but as the old cliche goes, your right to swing your fist ends at my nose.

Let's get real. Not only would such a fatality be immoral, someone would probably be prosecuted for negligent homicide. If a "sport" resulted in the death of an innocent non-participant, there would certainly be a criminal investigation. And as a practical matter, even if no one could be found criminally liable, there would be an enormous civil suit against the organizers and players. Really, any sport that is so dangerous to uninvolved people could never be. It would be criminalized and sued out of existence.

 

[michabo]

It would be criminalized and sued out of existence.

You'd be surprised at what you can get away with once a large enough number of people start to do something.

I'll reveal all shortly, but since I'm going somewhere very controversial, I'm going slowly. And I promise it won't have anything to do with homosexuals


For the moment, where would you draw the line? Is one unnecessary fatality enough?

And let's not forget, many people are happily engaging in this sport every day and they haven't harmed anyone. It's just that the sport does place innocent people at a greater risk. Would you think that any attempt to play this purely optional sport is immoral?

 

[Arnold_Philips]

The first thing I thought of was how living just a typical American lifestyle invariably causes some suffering to people in 3rd world countries (working in mud pits mining for minerals used in cell phones, for example). I think this is immoral, and in cases where it's easier to choose a cruelty-free option (Whole Foods stuff), the choice is clear, but in others I don't believe it's as clear cut.

 

[flicka]

Can you imagine any circumstance where it might? You don't need to use my example, that was just to get the conversation started.

I can't. All the scenario's I come up with involve some kind of active participation by the "innocent bystanders", even if it's just engaging in something with known ties to danger. My mind keeps wandering off to all kinds of things people do that can be risky. I'm curious to see where you are going though

 

[michabo]

I can't. All the scenario's I come up with involve some kind of active participation by the "innocent bystanders", even if it's just engaging in something with known ties to danger.

Alright, let's go down that path for a bit

Let's say that it isn't urban air rifle tag played in city blocks, but on designated paintball courses. Every year, 1.5 of every thousand people will die in paintball-related injuries. Some of these are playing the game, but many are workers, referees, managers or organizers. They make the choice to come to the course, but they need to do this to earn a living.

Then along come the urban air rifle tag players onto the paintball course. Suddenly the death rate shoots up from 1.5 per thousand to, say, 10 per thousand. There are debates about why this is exactly, but it seems clear that urban air rifle tag is causing many more deaths each year.

Is it still immoral? Why or why not?

 

[Mling]

If the death is foreseeable, and the failure to prevent it is due to negligance, then yes, it would be immoral.

If the death was part of a rare or freak accident, then it would not be, even the person who died was an innocent bystander.

 

[TooCurious]

If the death is foreseeable, and the failure to prevent it is due to negligance, then yes, it would be immoral.

If the death was part of a rare or freak accident, then it would not be, even the person who died was an innocent bystander.

This is much in line with my thoughts. If there are sufficiently few deaths that they can be seen as anomalous, and they could not have been reasonably predicted in advance, then culpability is limited.

If the deaths are frequent enough to indicate a distinct trend, and it's reasonable to expect danger to bystandards as a result of the activity, then the participants can and should be held more accountable.

 

[Spaceman_Spiff]

Do you think it is moral to engage in a behavior that you enjoy if it will endanger the lives of others if there are safer alternatives available?

At what point do you draw the line?


For a more concrete example, let's say a new sport takes off which results in 6,000 deaths each year. Half of these are people playing the new sport (urban air rifle tag, let's say) but half of these are innocent bystanders. The sport could be played with paintballs, or could be played in special fields, but it is more cool to play it in the city and these people pay the price.

Is this moral? Why or why not?

Let me paraphrase...

Death Race 2000... Immoral? yes/no?




Just teasing michabo

 

[michabo]

Okay, so here's my follow-up question.


I was reading a book on SUVs (called "High and Mighty" ) which makes a very compelling case that SUVs are directly responsible for many deaths every year. This is inexcusible. It is strictly an image issue, as we all know that the vast majority of SUVs will never go off-road. And yet to maintain this image, SUV owners are callously endangering the lives of fellow drivers.

I saw it put best in the NY Times:

[FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica]S.U.V.'s are inherently dangerous, not for their own passengers but for everyone else. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration reports that the height and weight of S.U.V.'s make them responsible for roughly 2,000 additional deaths a year, and 20 times more likely than a conventional vehicle to kill other motorists in side collisions. If you have no compelling need for the S.U.V.'s off-road features -- i.e., if your sport utility vehicle has no utility -- there's no way to justify endangering others so you can play cowboy. Why should your fellow motorists support your life style with their life span?
(Source: Randy Cohen, NY Times. Quoted http://www.transalt.org/press/media/1999/990502nytimes.html)
[/FONT]​

So here's my question for the group: will you stand by your earlier statements and condem SUV drivers as immoral? Do you think they should not support their lifestyle at the risk of others' lifespan?

 

[michabo]

BTW: the figures above were in 1999. Things have grown much worse as the number of SUVs has skyrocketed, including such monsters as the Hummer which can roll right over cars and driving steel or tires directly into the windshield with no chance for the car body to absorb any shock. The older SUVs are making their way into the hands of younger (and more agressive) drivers that may not maintain their vehicles as well. The estimated deaths has grown and will continue to grow.

But sticking with the 2,000/year figure - that's still a 9/11 of unnecessary deaths every year and a half. That's more than eight Boeing 747s buring and killing all occupants every year. And this doesn't include paralysis or other injuries.

 

[jayem]

[FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica]

[/FONT]
So here's my question for the group: will you stand by your earlier statements and condem SUV drivers as immoral? Do you think they should not support their lifestyle at the risk of others' lifespan?

What is the actuarial status of SUV's? Are they rated in a higher premium class for liability insurance? I've always suspected they may be dangerous. If that is indeed true, then it is absolutely immoral to drive one just because you like it. It's the same as if you're driving a vehicle you know has bad brakes. It's irresponsible to knowingly endanger another driver's life and limb. (I won't say government has to legislate this. But if SUV's are more dangerous than cars, then their insurance rates should reflect that.)

I'll go one further. I think it's immoral to drive a gas guzzler, or a car with a faulty emissions system. This also indicates irresponsibility, IMO.

 

[michabo]

What is the actuarial status of SUV's? Are they rated in a higher premium class for liability insurance?

That is a very interesting question, and a politically charged one. The stats are excellent in demonstrating that SUVs are dangerous to their owners and to others. The SUVs themselves aren't damaged as much because they are very stiff and aren't designed to absorb impact, which reduces the insurance cost to some extent, but the health impacs are large.

However, and this is the big gotcha, rich white guys drive SUVs. The same rich white guys that vote, the same rich white guys that are in elected offices, the same rich white guys that carry enormous political clout. The book details some of the history of insurance companies and how they've tried to deal with this issue. In short, boosting the premiums to cover the true cost of SUVs has driven people away, and they take their home insurance and other business with them. They have also put a lot of legal and political pressure on these insurance companies to change this practice. It means that the first insurance companies to start doing this will lose a lot of business until others match them.

Car drivers are paying for SUVs through injuries as well as subsidising their insurance!

 

[Mling]

The SUVs themselves aren't damaged as much because they are very stiff and aren't designed to absorb impact,

Now that's just a stupid way to build a car. The car I used to drive was, I believe, designed specifically to absorb impact. I got in an accident with it, going maybe 30 mph, and it was completely totaled. I walked out, dazed but sporting only a bruise and few welts from the airbag. That is how I want any accident I'm in to go--whatever happens to the car happens, but I'm in one piece! Other way around---not as good.

 

[TooCurious]

I've always thought there was something a bit irresponsible about owning an SUV when you don't have a valid, practical use for the capabilities of the machine. I honestly can't fathom why they've become such status symbols. It seems that they exceed the "reasonable expectation of harm" criterion I expressed in my previous post, so I would have to agree that there is something problematic about unnecessary SUV use/ownership.