Speeding - Teaching American Faithful "The Morality of Rationilization"

[Smber2c]

So, first a basic question: Can we break the law without a good moral reason?

My mind finds this an easy question to answer: no. We are called to be obedient to the government unless the government’s law is actually somehow countering morally correct actions, then we can/should disobey.

So speeding. I’m 23, I’m male, and I love to zip through town. I’ve never hit anyone or anything. I’m not reckless. It’s just that 60 on the interstate can feel a bit slow, 30 or 35 on our highways is crawliing, and 20 MPH on my street is torture. I won’t even start on the 5 or 10 MPH posted in many parking lots - watching grampa’s hover round speed past.

But just because it’s hard does that somehow mean I don’t need to follow? Can I really pretend that the speed limit is an immoral law? Is the speed limit “unreasonable?”

1st, I want to try following the law with this. It’s certainly counter cultural and obedient despite the law isn’t really enforced.

But there’s a real problem here too. Most would say, “the govenment don’t care if you’re driving with the flow of traffic.” Why have laws that aren’t enforced? Don’t parents, teachers, and coaches all preach that discipline works best when the punishments are real and enforced from day one/?
Then why would the goverment educate the public the break small laws. With children this has shown as a great way to have them keep pushing to test the line.

Why wouldn’t the gov’t raise all the speed limits 5-10 MPH then give tickets for even 1 mph over? That way people learn to follow the law and learn the law isn’t something to mess with.

 

[JimG]

Why wouldn’t the gov’t raise all the speed limits 5-10 MPH then give tickets for even 1 mph over? That way people learn to follow the law and learn the law isn’t something to mess with.

If they raised the speed limits by 5 or 10 mph, people would go 5mph over the new limit (or more.)

It’s unlikely the police would ticket for 1mph over because most people would claim that either the radar or their speedometers are not that accurate.

As for keeping up with the flow of traffic, in some cities it’s necessary to do that for safety’s sake, even when that means exceeding the speed limit.

 

[Smber2c]

If they raised the speed limits by 5 or 10 mph, people would go 5mph over the new limit (or more.)
It’s unlikely the police would ticket for 1mph over because most people would claim that either the radar or their speedometers are not that accurate.

Hey Jim, the purpose of the question was to look at the morality of speeding; and whether allowing speeding may then encourage other deviancy.
This doesn’t really address either.

I'm sorry, I shouldn't have insterted the final paragraph in my opening post since it is just speculation on enacting laws.  But if we could try not speculating on if non-speeding is possible and instead stick to the two main questions I'd be much appreciative.  :D

The questions were:

1. Can we morally justify speeding? How?
2. By making laws they don’t enforce, does government encourage people (esp. youth) to test other laws to see if they are enforced?

Thanks alot guys.

 

[wjp984]

If they raised the speed limits by 5 or 10 mph, people would go 5mph over the new limit (or more.)

It’s unlikely the police would ticket for 1mph over because most people would claim that either the radar or their speedometers are not that accurate.

As for keeping up with the flow of traffic, in some cities it’s necessary to do that for safety’s sake, even when that means exceeding the speed limit.

it has more to do with the fact that the radar games and spedometers have a margin of error of about 5mph

 

[mapleoak]

1. Can we morally justify speeding? How?

In general, no. The ability to enact traffic rules are well within the limits of lawful authority. They are not matters of intrinsic nature and one would do well to obey such lawful authority. Can it ever be justified to violate these laws? Certainly, as in the hypothetical instance of rushing a woman with labor complications to the hospital. This is compared to taking rice from ones neighbor if in danger of death from starvation. If it was an intrinsic evil, this would not be acceptable, since immoral means may not be used to achieve a good end.

1. By making laws they don’t enforce, does government encourage people (esp. youth) to test other laws to see if they are enforced?

Certainly. If people are reasonably sure they can ‘get away’ with something, there are many of those who will do so.

 

[Nino]

So, first a basic question: Can we break the law without a good moral reason?

My mind finds this an easy question to answer: no. We are called to be obedient to the government unless the government’s law is actually somehow countering morally correct actions, then we can/should disobey.

So speeding. I’m 23, I’m male, and I love to zip through town. I’ve never hit anyone or anything. I’m not reckless. It’s just that 60 on the interstate can feel a bit slow, 30 or 35 on our highways is crawliing, and 20 MPH on my street is torture. I won’t even start on the 5 or 10 MPH posted in many parking lots - watching grampa’s hover round speed past.

But just because it’s hard does that somehow mean I don’t need to follow? Can I really pretend that the speed limit is an immoral law? Is the speed limit “unreasonable?”

1st, I want to try following the law with this. It’s certainly counter cultural and obedient despite the law isn’t really enforced.

But there’s a real problem here too. Most would say, “the govenment don’t care if you’re driving with the flow of traffic.” Why have laws that aren’t enforced? Don’t parents, teachers, and coaches all preach that discipline works best when the punishments are real and enforced from day one/?
Then why would the goverment educate the public the break small laws. With children this has shown as a great way to have them keep pushing to test the line.

Why wouldn’t the gov’t raise all the speed limits 5-10 MPH then give tickets for even 1 mph over? That way people learn to follow the law and learn the law isn’t something to mess with.

 

[Nino]

…if one is on the road at 3am…coming to a stop sign and light and three thugs are on the corner…dont stop …keep going thru the light for safetys sake…the law is flexible in many cases…in a concentration camp one does not steal…one tries to survive so one can take from a guard or kitchen in that camp anything to survive…but but but…that line is quite thin…breaking any established law at will can be dangerous…and human nature is such that rationalization follows like a hound dawg very close behind. Common sense, as civility, personal responsibility are not p;c in todays fascist society so buyer beware…and remember…be careful driving outta this parking lot…the life you save may be mine!!! Nino

 

[drafdog]

One of the Pauline epistles admonishes the faithful to be obedient to the laws of the land. While it may not be a sin to speed, it reveals a sinful attitude. We somehow think that it doesn’t apply to us. This makes us above the rest of the population. It moves toward idolatry. We become Gods unto ourselves in our own minds.
I would advise that you be very careful of this attitude. It is a chink in the armor.

Matthew

 

[TheGoodLife]

I understand the highway speed. As long as you’re not being pushy with other cars (on their rear ends) and you are in control of your car (i.e., can safely stop around a bend at a moment’s notice if need be), then all you have to worry about is getting a ticket.

What bothers me is you don’t like to follow the speed limit on neighborhood streets. You’re young, so you probably don’t have kids. You may not understand how frustrating it is for parents like myself to watch as cars speed down the street while their children are playing outside. Accidents happen in the blink of an eye. Why risk killing a child over shaving a couple of seconds off your driving time?

 

[JimG]

Accidents happen in the blink of an eye. Why risk killing a child over shaving a couple of seconds off your driving time?

This is a very good point. In general, civil law should be obeyed. The degree of sin involved in disobeying speed limits would depend on the circumstances. As in the previous post, putting people’s lives in danger is a serious matter. But speeding when you are being pursued by a serial killer is another matter.

 

[otjm]

The first presumption being made is that speed laws are absolute. They may or may not be. Further, it is the State that regulates the implementation of the speed laws; and if they are implemented in a way that grants some leeway - you don’t get ticketed doing 60 on a highway marked 55 - then it is not a moral issue per se; it is a common sense issue; am I going at a speed that does not endanger myself or others? If it is the dead of winter in a snowstorm that has resulted in a combination of ice and snowpack on the roadway, 30 mph may be pushing the envelope. However, The highways were designed for an average speed of 65 to 75 mph, and the 55 limit was imposed as a conservation measure - one that was an overall average (and yes, I know a Porsche may get its best mpg at something well over 55).

There is also a common sense part of the whole issue. If the traffic flow is over 55 - around here on I-5 it is often about 65 - then one may be endangering oneself and others by going 55, particularly in the middle or inside lane. Trying to play a “moral” card on the issue takes a little more sophistication than a black and white approach, as it simply is not a black and white issue - the Stated doesn’t make it one, so don’t try to trump the State.

 

[tvdxer]

So, first a basic question: Can we break the law without a good moral reason?

My mind finds this an easy question to answer: no. We are called to be obedient to the government unless the government’s law is actually somehow countering morally correct actions, then we can/should disobey.

So speeding. I’m 23, I’m male, and I love to zip through town. I’ve never hit anyone or anything. I’m not reckless. It’s just that 60 on the interstate can feel a bit slow, 30 or 35 on our highways is crawliing, and 20 MPH on my street is torture. I won’t even start on the 5 or 10 MPH posted in many parking lots - watching grampa’s hover round speed past.

But just because it’s hard does that somehow mean I don’t need to follow? Can I really pretend that the speed limit is an immoral law? Is the speed limit “unreasonable?”

1st, I want to try following the law with this. It’s certainly counter cultural and obedient despite the law isn’t really enforced.

But there’s a real problem here too. Most would say, “the govenment don’t care if you’re driving with the flow of traffic.” Why have laws that aren’t enforced? Don’t parents, teachers, and coaches all preach that discipline works best when the punishments are real and enforced from day one/?
Then why would the goverment educate the public the break small laws. With children this has shown as a great way to have them keep pushing to test the line.

Why wouldn’t the gov’t raise all the speed limits 5-10 MPH then give tickets for even 1 mph over? That way people learn to follow the law and learn the law isn’t something to mess with.

The spirit of the law is what really matters. In some things the letter of the law does not need to be strictly obeyed. For example, sometimes traffic flows at 10 mph over the speed limit, and in this case I think it’d be acceptable to speed. Or on a deserted highway with good visibility, it probably wouldn’t be a sin to go 60 in a 55. Speed limits are enacted to keep drivers exceeding a safe speed and endangering themselves and other users of the road. Of course, we can’t be too liberal in judging what is “safe” for ourselves.

Speed limits, I should also mention, (at least around here) aren’t posted on signs everywhere. There is some assumption that drivers will choose a safe speed on their own. For example, on many neighborhood streets around here, where there is essentially only one lane because cars are parked on the side, it would be unwise to exceed 10 mph. One should not speed on neighborhood streets.

 

[rwoehmke]

It is a sin to go faster than the posted limits. How serious as someone said depends a lot on place and circumstance. You will find if you look at statistics that in addition to alcohol many accidents and deaths are marked up as due to excessive speed. Once you have been at fault in an accident where someone is killed or seriously injured you cannot take all back. So…think ahead a little. Don’t get so cocky…“I’ve never had an accident.” I came very close to being killed back during WW II on a city street when cars were slower and the numbers on a street were much lower. I must have run into the street and the next thing I know I am looking at a bumper less than six inches away. It can happen quick and without warning. Here in the North when there is snow on the roadway or ice there are still people who think they can drive at the posted limit. They are often either in a crash or find themselves off the road in the ditch or median. It takes a couple of snowfalls for them to get smarter.Don’t drink and drive and watch your speed. I still morn young people and old from my small community who became statistics on or sometimes off the road where their bcars ended up. I was an EMT for about ten years and there is nothing exciting about blood, broken bones, and death just because someone thought they knew better…

 

[gallo]

What a “coincidence”! The Vatican has released “the 10 Commandments of the Road” teaching.
catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=24457

The “Ten Commandments” for drivers, as listed in the document, are:
I. You shall not kill.
II. The road shall be for you a means of communion between people and not of mortal harm.
III. Courtesy, uprightness and prudence will help you deal with unforeseen events.
IV. Be charitable and help your neighbor in need, especially victims of accidents.
V. Cars shall not be for you an expression of power and domination and an occasion of sin.
VI. Charitably convince the young and not so young not to drive when they are not in a fitting condition to do so.
VII. Support the families of accident victims.
VIII. Bring guilty motorists and their victims together, at the appropriate time, so that they can undergo the liberating experience of forgiveness.
IX. On the road, protect the more vulnerable party.
X. Feel responsible toward others.

First, it’s a matter of integrity, which is seriously overlooked in today’s culture (especially USA). The posted limits and road laws are designed for safety and courtesy. They are to be respected and obeyed (save the serious situations above like when a killer is chasing you down, then the responsibility is lessened). Is it wrong if one takes something from a store when there is no one around to see them do it or if no one does anything about it? No, it’s still stealing. Speeding, even though it may have “less” impact is still breaking the law. That means it is a criminal behavior whether it is enforced or not.
I know the temptation to speed especially when I have had a long day and am ready to be home. But I still have a responsibility to respect other drivers, those who make the laws, and the law itself. There have been many times that I have been nearly run off the road, hit head on, or rear ended by other people speeding. I don’t want that responsibility and personally, I don’t want anyone else to have the opportunity to bear that responsibility.

…ok, so that’s my rant…

 

[otjm]

The spirit of the law is what really matters. In some things the letter of the law does not need to be strictly obeyed. For example, sometimes traffic flows at 10 mph over the speed limit, and in this case I think it’d be acceptable to speed. Or on a deserted highway with good visibility, it probably wouldn’t be a sin to go 60 in a 55. Speed limits are enacted to keep drivers exceeding a safe speed and endangering themselves and other users of the road. Of course, we can’t be too liberal in judging what is “safe” for ourselves.

Speed limits, I should also mention, (at least around here) aren’t posted on signs everywhere. There is some assumption that drivers will choose a safe speed on their own. For example, on many neighborhood streets around here, where there is essentially only one lane because cars are parked on the side, it would be unwise to exceed 10 mph. One should not speed on neighborhood streets.

Just because the government makes a law does not meant that a) it is a moral issue; and b) that following it is morally correct. Speed laws outside of state and interstate highways generally are based on safety and are presumed to be a maximum for safe driving. State, and particularly interstate highways were impacted by conservation laws from the Feds, and that was based on political compromise and factual compromise. The highways were generally built for higher speeds than the Feds dictated (and guess who had a hand in their design - you got it, the Feds). The over-arching issue on speed laws is safety; and if safety indicates that you can go 65 on a highway designed for 70 to 75, and the Feds tell the state they have to post 55, then the moral issue behind all of it - safety - is not being broken by going 65 in a 55 zone.

However, if the state chooses to enforce it and ticket you at 58; they have the ability. Morality has nothing to do with it.

Further, the posted speed limit is a maximum, not an absolute. going 55 on a highway posted at 55 on sheet ice is a moral issue.

 

[Smber2c]

A couple people have suggested that a speed limit is not an absolute…and there seems to be 2 uses of the word.

One use of absolute suggests that we may have to go the speed limit - which we all agree is not true.

The second def. however, that a speed limit is…an actual limit of our acceptible legal speed; this def. seems pretty obvious.

Someone mentioned if we came to a red light at 3 AM with 3 thugish looking guys on the corner, we should go thru the light…I agree but that doesn’t mean we aren’t breaking the law. We would be. And if someone’s dying and we’re rushing to the hospital. If we’re fleeing a wave of approaching lava . Then I’d still think we’re breaking the law. But in all these situations we have situations in which breaking this law is understandable and not morally objectionable.

I still don’t get the notion of going 5 over being morally okay b/c 95% of the time a cop won’t care. This just seems like the halmark line of relativism.

“95% of preachers will say condoms are good, so they are.”
“95% of students in Tommy class copied homework, so it’s okay for Tommy.”
“99% of college students illegally download music, and 99.99% of those don’t get in any trouble, so it’s okay to do.”

meh.

 

[Smber2c]

It is a sin to go faster than the posted limits.
Once you have been at fault in an accident where someone is killed or seriously injured you cannot take all back. So…think ahead a little. Don’t get so cocky…“I’ve never had an accident.”.

I’m sorry if what I initally wrote sounded cocky to you. I looked it over and just think it’s simple truth. I’ve not been in a wreck I’ve caused (my one wreck was a lady who ran a stop sign and hit me).

I think that the majority of drivers can drive over 60 on the interstate and not cause wrecks. Same for 30 on a highway. And yes, despite what people wrote of children, I think 20 on a side street is to slow.

I slowdown when there are kids on the side walk, in yards, or in the street; I probably don’t even go the full 20 past kids under 10 or 12 years old cause you just don’t know. But frequently I’m doing down streets with full visibility of yards and driveways for the next 5 blocks and not a kid is in sight…and 20 seems painfully slow at these times. (as in not a single car I’ve ever driven behind or around just goes 20)

 

[otjm]

A couple people have suggested that a speed limit is not an absolute…and there seems to be 2 uses of the word.

One use of absolute suggests that we may have to go the speed limit - which we all agree is not true.

The second def. however, that a speed limit is…an actual limit of our acceptible legal speed; this def. seems pretty obvious.

Someone mentioned if we came to a red light at 3 AM with 3 thugish looking guys on the corner, we should go thru the light…I agree but that doesn’t mean we aren’t breaking the law. We would be. And if someone’s dying and we’re rushing to the hospital. If we’re fleeing a wave of approaching lava . Then I’d still think we’re breaking the law. But in all these situations we have situations in which breaking this law is understandable and not morally objectionable.

I still don’t get the notion of going 5 over being morally okay b/c 95% of the time a cop won’t care. This just seems like the halmark line of relativism.

“95% of preachers will say condoms are good, so they are.”
“95% of students in Tommy class copied homework, so it’s okay for Tommy.”
“99% of college students illegally download music, and 99.99% of those don’t get in any trouble, so it’s okay to do.”

meh.

That is because you are presuming that because a law is written, that it has specific moral implications. Just because they post a speed limit on the interstate does not mean that in and of itself it has a moral implication - that if you go faster than the limit, that you have made a moral transgression. If you go over the limit - 65 in a 55 zone of a highway - you may get a ticket and have to pay a fine; but that does not mean you are a bad person, that syou have sinned, that you have to confess the act. You have not necessarily violated the basic speed law, which is that you must drive safely for yourself and others. That is why the cops generally don’t ticket someone doing 65 on a highway marked 55; you are generally driving safely, particularly if you are moving with the general traffic speed. It has nothing to do with relativism; it has to do with how law is written and what the intent of the legislature was when they wrote it. In almost all cases involving the 55 limit on highways, it was only to avoid a dcut-off of federal funds, not to make a statement about the morality of driving at a certain speed.

 

[gallo]

So the question is: why is it a big deal to do the speed limit? So it seems that speeding is not necessarily the wrong, but the desires to be above the law and say that they don’t apply to one’s self is providing the occasion of sin.
If you’re in a hurry, leave earlier. If the neighborhood limits are too slow, take another route.
I don’t remember this being such a problem 10+ years ago. Is it because cars are being produced with more speed potential therefore making the temptation more present? Or is it just the Western-fast food-high speed internet-give it to me now attitude?
Slow down and smell the prayer incense folks.

 

[Jay2]

You should not speed because it is against the Law. As a citizen of a community your obligation is to obey the laws.

People “speed” because the punishment is monetary, inconvenient, and conviction is 1 in 100.

If the punishment for speeding (3MPH+ over posted) was $1500 and a minimum of 90 days (name removed by moderator)risonment would you do it?? If a 2nd offense in a year was $5000 and 6 months in the can would you do it??

No.

Speed Limits are set by a number of factors, mainly visibility, reaction time, population density, and road capacity. They are there for a reason… not to be inconvenient to you.
(Ask the same question when they scrape “little Jimmy” off your bumper when you were doing 50 in a 30!.. and you weren’t able to stop.)

You state that “60 on the Interstate is just too slow”. Well, I ask are YOU up to the demands of traveling faster than 88 feet per second? Even at 40MPH (59 fps)?? A helluva lot can happen in 60 feet, considering the best driver wasted about 20 feet of it in the time it took to get from the gas to the brake pedal!

Just follow the posted limit, and leave home 10 minutes earlier… problem solved… and no “Little Jimmy” to scrape off!