Legislating Morality

[Valke2]

It is not an immoral act to break a speed limit. One way to know this is that intent is not an issue. It does not matter why I was speeding, I have still broken the law. If intent is not an issue, then how can a speed limit be legislating morality?

 

[elt1956]

It is not an immoral act to break a speed limit. One way to know this is that intent is not an issue. It does not matter why I was speeding, I have still broken the law. If intent is not an issue, then how can a speed limit be legislating morality?

Negligence is an act of omission. Peace

 

[mapleoak]

Negligence is an act of omission. Peace

And acts of omission are “acts” no less.
Being negligent is a choice.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Why do you keep throwing in drunk driving laws? Because you know that speed limits by themselves have nothing to do with morality.

Quite the contrary – traffic laws have everything to do with morality. It is immoral to operate a motor vehicle so as to put others at risk.

Again, not a moral issue. I already have a license and have paid for it. There’s no test for a license renewal. You just send a check. It does not ensure competent drivers. If it did, there would be a lot less fatalities. But its irrelevant, because there is no requirement to take a new test or do anything other then send in a check.

Actually, it is quite relevant – the licensing system is extensive and there’s more to it than just sending in a check. For example, your driving record is linked to your license, and your insurance company requests copies of your record annually.

Just admit that all laws are not based on any morality. Sometimes even you are wrong.

Traffic laws, however, are not among those. Sometimes even you are wrong.

 

[Valke2]

Negligence is an act of omission. Peace

breaking a speed limit is not necessarily negligence

 

[vern_humphrey]

breaking a speed limit is not necessarily negligence

It’s either negligence (not noticing your speed) or wilful. No other choices.

 

[Valke2]

Traffic laws, however, are not among those. Sometimes even you are wrong.

In theory, it is possible that I could be wrong. If I were able to live for an extraodinary long period of time, for example, the chances of me being wrong would increase. But I’m not talking about drunk driving laws, or other traffic laws other than speed limits.

 

[AndyF]

How do I explain in an elementary way to someone that we DO legislate morality in this country and that morality is not subjective?

Any nation who wished to advance moral concepts can only do it has a messenger. As far as moral laws is concerned, a nation can only pass on God’s laws, not define what is moral or change or modify them. God-defined moral laws are absolute and every entity is subject to them.

The error of defining moral laws can be seen in the past. For instance in one of many cases it was morally right to hand over your parents in Nazi Germany. Today what is starting to gain prominence is the concept of abortion as well as other forbidden acts.

AndyF

 

[vern_humphrey]

In theory, it is possible that I could be wrong. If I were able to live for an extraodinary long period of time, for example, the chances of me being wrong would increase. But I’m not talking about drunk driving laws, or other traffic laws other than speed limits.

How are speed limits any different from other traffic laws?

 

[Island_Oak]

Take a look at the tax code…its not nearly as sexy as “unmarried partner benefits” or the like, but it provides the framework for the most enduring secular dogma and system of social order with attached rewards/punishments we have managed to legislate.

 

[rwoehmke]

In my opinion this thread has now slipped its moorings and is adrift.

 

[vern_humphrey]

From the Catechism:

1736 Every act directly willed is imputable to its author:

Thus the Lord asked Eve after the sin in the garden: "What is this that you have done?"29 He asked Cain the same question.30 The prophet Nathan questioned David in the same way after he committed adultery with the wife of Uriah and had him murdered.31

**An action can be indirectly voluntary when it results from negligence regarding something one should have known or done: for example, an accident arising from ignorance of traffic laws. **

(My emphasis)

 

[elt1956]

breaking a speed limit is not necessarily negligence

In what way is it not???

 

[vern_humphrey]

In what way is it not???

It’s not because if it were, the argument would be lost of course.

From the Catechism:

2290 The virtue of temperance disposes us to avoid every kind of excess: the abuse of food, alcohol, tobacco, or medicine.** Those incur grave guilt who, by drunkenness or a love of speed, endanger their own and others’ safety on the road**, at sea, or in the air.

(My emphasis)

 

[Valke2]

It’s either negligence (not noticing your speed) or wilful. No other choices.

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.

 

[vern_humphrey]

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.

And did the judge accept that argument?

 

[elt1956]

In theory, it is possible that I could be wrong. If I were able to live for an extraodinary long period of time, for example, the chances of me being wrong would increase. But I’m not talking about drunk driving laws, or other traffic laws other than speed limits.

What is it you don’t understand about negligence? It is an omission whereby one NEGLECTS to obey the law??? You have heard of sins of omission, right?? You know, “Gee if only I had been obeying the traffic laws, I wouldn’t have totaled my car, or hit that other car, or…” The RESULTt is an “accident”. The CAUSE is negligence which is a NEGATIVE action in the absence of a POSITIVE action which would be obeying the speed laws. We are RESPONSIBLE for either our actions, or inactions. :banghead: PEACE!!!

 

[elt1956]

What is it you don’t understand about negligence? It is an omission whereby one NEGLECTS to obey the law??? You have heard of sins of omission, right?? You know, “Gee if only I had been obeying the traffic laws, I wouldn’t have totaled my car, or hit that other car, or…” The RESULTt is an “accident”. The CAUSE is negligence which is a NEGATIVE action in the absence of a POSITIVE action which would be obeying the speed laws. We are RESPONSIBLE for either our actions, or inactions. :banghead: PEACE!!!

Almost forgot to post on my post. There is no such thing as inaction or indecision. Even if you decide not to decide, it is still a decision. If you decide not to act it is still an act. . Peace

 

[Valke2]

And did the judge accept that argument?

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.

 

[Valke2]

What is it you don’t understand about negligence? It is an omission whereby one NEGLECTS to obey the law??? You have heard of sins of omission, right?? You know, “Gee if only I had been obeying the traffic laws, I wouldn’t have totaled my car, or hit that other car, or…” The RESULTt is an “accident”. The CAUSE is negligence which is a NEGATIVE action in the absence of a POSITIVE action which would be obeying the speed laws. We are RESPONSIBLE for either our actions, or inactions. :banghead: PEACE!!!

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.