Legislating Morality

[vern_humphrey]

No. Because the law doesn’t care if you are driving negligently or not. It only cares if you are driving over the speed limit.

Well, I gotta tell ya, if it had been a jury trial, and I’d been on the jury, that’s how I’d have voted.

Driving over the posted speed limit is ipso facto neglegence.

 

[Valke2]

Well, I gotta tell ya, if it had been a jury trial, and I’d been on the jury, that’s how I’d have voted.

Driving over the posted speed limit is ipso facto neglegence.

ipso facto? no. Maybe you mean negligence per se.

But it really isn’t that either.
Not in the US anyway.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I’m pretty familiar with the concept of legal negligence. Your definition is not correct. The result of an accident may or may not be caused by the fact that I was driving over the speed limit. That fact may have nothing to do with the accident. That I “neglected” to ovey the limit is not proof of negligence on my part.

Negligence or arrogance, take your pick. You either decided your wants were superior to the law, or you weren’t paying attention.

 

[vern_humphrey]

ipso facto? no. Maybe you mean negligence per se.

But it really isn’t that either.
Not in the US anyway.

Ipso facto – by that fact. Per se – in itself.

To drive over the speed limit is a negligent act. The only question now is, was it an arrogant, wilful violation of the law, or did it occur from inattention?

 

[Valke2]

Negligence or arrogance, take your pick. You either decided your wants were superior to the law, or you weren’t paying attention.

well, now you are changing the argument from what constitutes negligence or if a speed limit legislates morality, to my reason for breaking a speed limit.

 

[vern_humphrey]

well, now you are changing the argument from what constitutes negligence or if a speed limit legislates morality, to my reason for breaking a speed limit.

I haven’t changed squat. From the very first, when you said speed limits are not moral issues, I and several others have patiently pointed out that breaking the speed limit inadvertantly is neglegence and doing it deliberately is putting others at risk.

If you break the speed limit, unknowingly or wilfully, you commit an immoral act.

 

[Valke2]

I haven’t changed squat. From the very first, when you said speed limits are not moral issues, I and several others have patiently pointed out that breaking the speed limit inadvertantly is neglegence and doing it deliberately is putting others at risk.

If you break the speed limit, unknowingly or wilfully, you commit an immoral act.

nope.

 

[vern_humphrey]

nope.

yep.

 

[Valke2]

Previous versions of the Green Book referred to design speed as the “maximum safe speed that can be maintained over a specific section of highway when conditions are so favorable that the design features of the highway govern”; however the 2001 edition removed the term “safe” in order to avoid the implication that speeds greater than the design speed were necessarily “unsafe.”

 

[vern_humphrey]

Previous versions of the Green Book referred to design speed as the “maximum safe speed that can be maintained over a specific section of highway when conditions are so favorable that the design features of the highway govern”; however the 2001 edition removed the term “safe” in order to avoid the implication that speeds greater than the design speed were necessarily “unsafe.”

So what?

The proper authority has set the maximum speed. They did that in the interests of safety. Does that mean any yahoo who disagrees with them is free to disregard the limit?

Violating the speed limit is either negligence, wilful disregard of public safety, or both.

 

[cynic]

These laws are intended to protect people from each other, not themselves.

 

[elt1956]

:crying:

I’m pretty familiar with the concept of legal negligence. Your definition is not correct. The result of an accident MAY or MAY NOT be caused by the fact that I was driving over the speed limit. That fact MAY have nothing to do with the accident. That I “neglected” to ovey the limit is not proof of negligence on my part.

Okay am I a voice crying in the wilderness, here? :crying:

Proof to whom/who? I suppose if no one sees you it can’t be proved. And if you don’t have an active conscience, nothing that isn’t concrete will be taken by you as proof one way, or another. And I think the operative word in your argument is “may”. Can’t say for certain can you what “may” result? How about instead of negligent we use the term slothful. Too lazy to follow the rules???I do think there is something mentioned about sloth in the Bible? Anyway, I know it is frowned upon.

The Code of Hammurabi [18th Century BCE]
53: If any one be too lazy to keep his dam in proper condition, and does not so keep it; if then the dam break and all the fields be flooded, then shall he in whose dam the break occurred be sold for money, and the money shall replace the [grain] which he has caused to be ruined
54: If he be not able to replace the [grain], then he and his possessions shall be divided among the farmers whose corn he has flooded

But I don’t think I would want your car if it is trashed. Hammurabi may also had the following law. Thou shat keep two chariot’s length behind the chariots in front of you lest thou trashest your chariot and others. Peace and goodbye.

 

[elt1956]

:crying:

Okay am I a voice crying in the wilderness, here? :crying:

Proof to whom/who? I suppose if no one sees you it can’t be proved. And if you don’t have an active conscience, nothing that isn’t concrete will be taken by you as proof one way, or another. And I think the operative word in your argument is “may”. Can’t say for certain can you what “may” result? How about instead of negligent we use the term slothful. Too lazy to follow the rules???I do think there is something mentioned about sloth in the Bible? Anyway, I know it is frowned upon.

The Code of Hammurabi [18th Century BCE]
53: If any one be too lazy to keep his dam in proper condition, and does not so keep it; if then the dam break and all the fields be flooded, then shall he in whose dam the break occurred be sold for money, and the money shall replace the [grain] which he has caused to be ruined
54: If he be not able to replace the [grain], then he and his possessions shall be divided among the farmers whose corn he has flooded

But I don’t think I would want your car if it is trashed. Hammurabi may also had the following law. Thou shalt keep two chariot’s length behind the chariots in front of you lest thou trashest your chariot and others. Peace and goodbye.

 

[Holly3278]

Well certainly all laws attempt to codify SOMEONE’S moral view. And while Catholic don’t view morality as subjective, I am afraid that in a Democratic society ONLY the moral tenets that are shared by a majority of society will be codified.

For example, for Catholics artificial contraception is unquestionably immoral, for most non-Catholics, it isn’t. Since in Democratic societies governments derive their legitimacy from the consent of the governed, we are unlikely to see laws against ABC in our lifetimes.

Yes and this is a major reason why we who live in a Democratic society should seek to spread Catholic morality throughout the Democratic world and indeed throughout the entire world as well.

 

[mapleoak]

that’s not true at all. I can be driving over the speed limit and still not be driving negligently. Negligence requires that one to ignore a legal standrad against forseeable risky and harmful acts. Driving 35 in a 25 mile zone on a Sunday evening when there are no school children present is not negligent.

Depends if the speed limit is 25 only when school children are present. Otherwise it is negligence or wilful disobedience.

Because the law doesn’t care if you are driving negligently or not. It only cares if you are driving over the speed limit.

This of course is not true. Why do you think someone who apologetically admits to negligence is more likely to be let off the hook or treated gentler then someone who obstinately asserts he was justified in his action to the authorities?

nope.

yep.

Yep, Yep, Yep, Yep, Yep, Uh-Huh, Uh-Huh!

:crying:

Okay am I a voice crying in the wilderness, here? :crying:

Proof to whom/who? I suppose if no one sees you it can’t be proved. And if you don’t have an active conscience, nothing that isn’t concrete will be taken by you as proof one way, or another. And I think the operative word in your argument is “may”. Can’t say for certain can you what “may” result? How about instead of negligent we use the term slothful. Too lazy to follow the rules???I do think there is something mentioned about sloth in the Bible? Anyway, I know it is frowned upon.

It comes back to it being immoral to disobey lawful authority, whether lawful authority cares if disobey them or not. If one disobeys the law and is pardoned after the fact (or deceived into granting pardon), it does not remove the fact that an immoral act was committed.

 

[Valke2]

So what?

The proper authority has set the maximum speed. They did that in the interests of safety. Does that mean any yahoo who disagrees with them is free to disregard the limit?

Violating the speed limit is either negligence, wilful disregard of public safety, or both.

It is not “any yahoo”. My post was information that the gov’t used to base its speed limit laws on.

 

[vern_humphrey]

It is not “any yahoo”. My post was information that the gov’t used to base its speed limit laws on.

One who wilfully violates the speed limit puts himself in the “any yahoo” category.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

No. Because the law doesn’t care if you are driving negligently or not. It only cares if you are driving over the speed limit.

Negligence Law cares if you are driving negligently.

Moreover there are different degrees of negligence with malicious negligence and then reckless disregard being the most eggregious.

By the way did you know that the good-neighbour laws were taken directly from biblical teaching?

Happy Easter everyone!

 

[KathleenElsie]

Here are my thoughts for what small use they are.

To drive too fast is stealing time and also placing other in possible danger no matter how small.

To drive too slow is stealing time from others and also placing others in danger no matter how small.

Most if not all speed limits or road rules are there for a reason. Kids, farm equipment, schools, residential area etc. Thus they are not arbitrary and it is not our personal say as to the why or the reason. (traffic laws are the domain of the government and we are to render unto Cesar what is Cesar’s). Like it or not the Lord told us so.

Life, marriage and other things are God’s and we must follow what God has said. Even if they are the thing that God gave the government to do. That is why voting and keeping on top of the things that government does is so important to God’s people.

How can we ask blessings on our government when it does not follow God’s laws? How can we expect God to keep the things that government is responsible for in order if the government does not acknowledge God? Pray always for those that rule on earth and remember to remind them that you are doing so.

 

[larsegarots]

Since in Democratic societies governments derive their legitimacy from the consent of the governed, we are unlikely to see laws against ABC in our lifetimes.

What is it so important that you need to make a law?

What’s great about America is freedom, especially religious freedom. You have the option to NOT use contraception, but if you made it illegal, someone else with different religious views would not have the option TO use it.