Correct my analogy

[Brain]

Okay so, just for fun, I wrote out a little analogy and I wanted you all to critique it so it is actually applicable and it would be difficult to warp it so say otherwise than it actually does. especially the emergency vehicle thing and perhaps how to deal with the problem in the last paragraph
Brian Thompson:

Morality is like a stoplight, If you don’t know what it means you shouldnt be on that road, but even if you are on the road anyway and dont know its meaning you are still bound by it. It doenst matter if you dont want to stop, you have to stop lest you endanger or actually hurt yourself and others. Plus it is a red light, and stopping is the thing you do at red lights.

The top slot will always be red. They do not make green lights for use in the red light’s slot, and if a green light were where red should be, there would be trouble.

Some people are allowed to run the light in special circumstances, like emergency vehicles, but there is always a greater good expected to come from running the light. Futhermore, running the light is a side-effect of having to rush to an emergency, not a reason unto itself, and every reasonable means are taken to avoid any harm in the running of the light.

as for the other lightgs, the green light indicates that you are free to proceed only so long as you are proceeding in the way you should (right of way considered, following the arrow if the light is an arrow). Your freedom is 100% uninhibited, you are COMPLETLY free to proceed. You get to pick your lane, you get to pick which way you are going to turn, how fast you will accelerate, eavrything! so long as you are doing what you are free to do. you are not free to remain stationary if your path through the intersection is safe and clear, you are not free to turn left when you have a right arrow light. you are not free to back up, etc.

And with yellow, it actually does depend on how you are situated whather you should continue on or slow down, but you should not rush the light if you arent going to make it, lest it be a redlight by the time you enter the intersection. And if you pematurely slow you will not only have missed an opportuity to exersize freedom due to your scrupulosity, you may also have denied another the chance to be free as well.

Though, the stoplights eventually change. this is where the model breaks down, where the image fails, it is not an analgous justification for lobbying for a change in what is right and wrong.

 

[Della]

Apart from a few grammatical and spelling corrections, I think it’s all right. Of course, the analogy isn’t meant to be taken too far. But then analogies are only helps to understanding, not an end in themselves, aren’t they?

 

[SMHW]

I also think your analogy is pretty good.

I wouldn’t worry too much about the analogy eventually breaking down (especially since you point out that it does). I mean, even the parables and stories Jesus told would lead to absurdities if you carried them too far.

 

[ChrisR246]

I think it breaks down for several reasons

1. There is nothing intuitive about the stop light system. Take an aboriginie, who has never seen a car or a road, and plunk him down at an intersection and he will have no clue as to the purpose of the stop lights. On the other hand, there is an intuitive aspect to morality. Because we are created in God’s image, we “know” certain things are wrong, and so does everyone else.
2. Though the meaning of the colors are understood by drivers, their occurence is arbitrary. One day I encounter a red light at 3rd & Main. The next day the light is green.
3. The “owner” of the stop light can program the timing so that one direction is favored over the other. As a matter of fact, this is regularly done - the more traveled road gets more green light time than the less traveled. And as traffic patterns change the light can be changed. This is exactly the opposite of how we expect morality to be. Morality is not be driven by the majority or change over time as peoples preferences change.

Sorry.