Which Is More Moral?

[quatona]

Driving on the right or on the left?

 

[LionL]

Neither is more moral.
Do you think one is quatona?
If so, why?

 

[quatona]

Neither is more moral.
Do you think one is quatona?
If so, why?

No, I´m not the guy to make moral claims.
I am asking those who do.

 

[Winepress777]

It depends, is the car stolen or not?

 

[quatona]

It depends, is the car stolen or not?

What is the moral side for driving a stolen car, and what is the moral side for driving a not stolen car?

 

[Eudaimonist]

Driving on the right or on the left?

If you'd be murdering someone by driving on the right, then it would be more moral to drive on the left. And vice versa.

*waits patiently for the punch line to this thread*


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Winepress777]

What is the moral side for driving a stolen car, and what is the moral side for driving a not stolen car?

That depends on the side that the stolen car is being driven.

 

[Moral Orel]

Drivin on the right is more moral cause that's how we do it in 'merica!

 

[quatona]

That depends on the side that the stolen car is being driven.

IOW, moral relativism?

 

[quatona]

*waits patiently for the punch line to this thread*

There´s not really a punch line to it.
It is, however, prompted by the wish to understand certain concepts of "morality" better.
E.g. I am wondering about the multitude of threads asking "Is this or that moral or immoral?", and whether those who seem to make each and everything a moral issue eventually get to the point of thinking about human behaviours in other terms.
Also, I hear a lot about rules, prescriptions, ideas of conduct etc. being "ultimately pointless/meaningless/what-not-less" - unless there is an "objective" source for them. This is an argument that I - being a pragmatist and all - don´t understand.

So I thought I´d pick an issue that I guess most people consider not only not founded in objectivity, not only not having a transcendent or natural source, but also even being arbitrary: A rule that is extremely useful and helpful just for the fact that people consent and keep to it (no matter which version it is they agree upon).

 

[Dave-W]

Driving on the right or on the left?

Depends on which country you are in. For most, driving on the left would be immoral, illegal and fattening dangerous. But if you are in England, .....

 

[Eudaimonist]

So I thought I´d pick an issue that I guess most people consider not only not founded in objectivity, not only not having a transcendent or natural source, but also even being arbitrary: A rule that is extremely useful and helpful just for the fact that people consent and keep to it (no matter which version it is they agree upon).

The rule is only arbitrary with respect to its implementation, not with respect to its value as a rule. The basic rule strikes me as: "In order to improve traffic safety, there ought to be a social convention about which side of the road one should drive on."

Yes, there will no doubt be social conventions in applying moral rules, such as the etiquette of saying "please" and "thank you". The concerns addressed by those social conventions are deeper than the implementations.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[grasping the after wind]

I know of a person that was driving on the left side of a street when the law says to drive on the right and killed two people that were not doing so. So i would say it is more moral to drive on the side that it is expected you will drive on. This is not moral relativism it is adherence to a subjectively arrived at morality. Unlike moral relativism, morality that is subjectively arrived at is not something that is given to changing with an individual's decision.It is moral to drive on the expected side of the street and immoral to do otherwise. One may indeed need to swerve off the expected side in an emergency ( for instance to avoid someone immorally driving on the incorrect side) but that could not be defined as driving on the incorrect side of the street.

 

[Matthias Rose]

To play this completely straight: I do not see this as a moral question, but I am of the opinion that it is more rational to drive on the right.

My rationale is this:

Countries that drive on the right:
- have the driver on the left side of the car
- utilize the right hand for the manual transmission
- the right foot for the foot pedals

Countries that drive on the left:
- have the driver on the right side of the car
- utilize the left hand for the manual transmission
- still use the right foot for the foot pedals!

Placing the foot pedals in the center (centre) of the car, as the stick shift is, is a rational placement of the mechanism. Countries that drive on the left agree that the foot pedals should be used with the right foot, so they are making the irrational decision to buck the mirror image principle and put the foot pedals on the outside of the car, rather than toward the middle.

This may be a slight matter, but it is just enough to tip the scales in favor of driving on the right.

As for those nations who keep driving on the left as the norm, be aware that this is a legacy of keeping your sword-arm closer to a potential opponent, and the sword itself away from him, making a draw-and-parry maneuver as fluid as possible. There is no longer any necessity for efficient sword handling, resulting in this irrational consequence. (Read the history.)

Reading these forums has left me rather baffled as to what people mean by "moral" -- so I'm no longer sure I believe anything is moral or immoral. Some things may or may not be beneficial; some things may or may not be rational; but I couldn't tell you what is moral, including whether driving on the left or driving on the right has a moral edge.

 

[Winepress777]

IOW, moral relativism?

In other words, I'm joining you in pointless banter.

 

[Winepress777]

To play this completely straight: I do not see this as a moral question, but I am of the opinion that it is more rational to drive on the right.

My rationale is this:

Countries that drive on the right:
- have the driver on the left side of the car
- utilize the right hand for the manual transmission
- the right foot for the foot pedals

Countries that drive on the left:
- have the driver on the right side of the car
- utilize the left hand for the manual transmission
- still use the right foot for the foot pedals!

Placing the foot pedals in the center (centre) of the car, as the stick shift is, is a rational placement of the mechanism. Countries that drive on the left agree that the foot pedals should be used with the right foot, so they are making the irrational decision to buck the mirror image principle and put the foot pedals on the outside of the car, rather than toward the middle.

This may be a slight matter, but it is just enough to tip the scales in favor of driving on the right.

As for those nations who keep driving on the left as the norm, be aware that this is a legacy of keeping your sword-arm closer to a potential opponent, and the sword itself away from him, making a draw-and-parry maneuver as fluid as possible. There is no longer any necessity for efficient sword handling, resulting in this irrational consequence. (Read the history.)

Reading these forums has left me rather baffled as to what people mean by "moral" -- so I'm no longer sure I believe anything is moral or immoral. Some things may or may not be beneficial; some things may or may not be rational; but I couldn't tell you what is moral, including whether driving on the left or driving on the right has a moral edge.

I've always known this was the reason the smarter ones jumped on the Mayflower and headed to Plymouth Rock...

 

[brinny]

Which Is More Moral?

Driving on the right or on the left?

Would you care to elaborate on what you mean by moral?

Thank you kindly.

 

[quatona]

Which Is More Moral?



Would you care to elaborate on what you mean by moral?

Thank you kindly.

I´m actually trying to get a better idea what moralists mean by "moral".

 

[brinny]

I´m actually trying to get a better idea what moralists mean by "moral".

Then i s'pose we're both waiting to see what brilliant responses emerge, eh?

*gets popcorn*

 

[quatona]

The rule is only arbitrary with respect to its implementation, not with respect to its value as a rule. The basic rule strikes me as: "In order to improve traffic safety, there ought to be a social convention about which side of the road one should drive on."

Yes, the pragmatic benefits of such societal agreements are undisputed.
Would you say that this "basic rule" is a moral rule?

Yes, there will no doubt be social conventions in applying moral rules, such as the etiquette of saying "please" and "thank you".
The concerns addressed by those social conventions are deeper than the implementations.

Well, my hypothesis at this point: We don´t need any "moral rules" for arriving at pragmatically useful societal agreements.
Out of interest: What would be the moral rule behind the etiquette of saying "please" and "thank you"?