Night Ripper
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2010 04:09 pm
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;173536 wrote:
But, does the fact that the seat belt law is inconsistent in one way, mean that it is not a good idea to have a seat belt law?


The inconsistency is either an oversight or evidence that in different contexts people can recognize the injustice in telling other people what they may or may not do with their own bodies, even if it costs the taxpayers extra health care dollars.
Zetherin
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2010 04:15 pm
@Night Ripper,
Night Ripper;173543 wrote:
The inconsistency is either an oversight or evidence that in different contexts people can recognize the injustice in telling other people what they may or may not do with their own bodies, even if it costs the taxpayers extra health care dollars.


Well, I'm not sure if we can use that argument - that it is injustice to tell people what they may or may not do with their bodies. That's very common in law, if not the basis for many laws. I mean, murder, in a way, is an enforcement of what people may not do with their bodies (and otherwise). I can't, for instance, strangle someone with my hands without having legal ramifications. And what about driving drunk? Is it an injustice that I am instructed by law not to drive (doing something with my body) while drunk? What about sexual harassment? Is it an injustice that I am instructed by law not to grab a stranger's ass whilst walking down the street?
Mister Turnip
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2010 05:38 pm
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;173546 wrote:
Well, I'm not sure if we can use that argument - that it is injustice to tell people what they may or may not do with their bodies. That's very common in law, if not the basis for many laws. I mean, murder, in a way, is an enforcement of what people may not do with their bodies (and otherwise). I can't, for instance, strangle someone with my hands without having legal ramifications. And what about driving drunk? Is it an injustice that I am instructed by law not to drive (doing something with my body) while drunk? What about sexual harassment? Is it an injustice that I am instructed by law not to grab a stranger's ass whilst walking down the street?

With all due respect, I think this might be a bit of a distraction. As the old adage goes, "Your right to swing your fist ends at the other fellow's nose." Assuming, for a moment, that we can agree that at least one (and possibly the only) role of government is the preservation of rights, then your points, Zetherin, are irrelevant. Each of the examples you listed above is an example of one person abusing their rights to tread on those of others. Admittedly, perhaps Night Ripper should have included the clause "when it doesn't hurt anyone else" after he wrote the bit about telling people what to do with their bodies, but still... your cases don't meet the proper criteria for "laws that regulate what individuals may or may not do with their bodies," really. Of course, even if they did, I suppose it wouldn't matter. There's always the possibility that a law is unjust.
Zetherin
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2010 05:42 pm
@Mister Turnip,
Mister Turnip;173574 wrote:
With all due respect, I think this might be a bit of a distraction. As the old adage goes, "Your right to swing your fist ends at the other fellow's nose." Assuming, for a moment, that we can agree that at least one (and possibly the only) role of government is the preservation of rights, then your points, Zetherin, are irrelevant. Each of the examples you listed above is an example of one person abusing their rights to tread on those of others. Admittedly, perhaps Night Ripper should have included the clause "when it doesn't hurt anyone else" after he wrote the bit about telling people what to do with their bodies, but still... your cases don't meet the proper criteria for "laws that regulate what individuals may or may not do with their bodies," really. Of course, even if they did, I suppose it wouldn't matter. There's always the possibility that a law is unjust.


That is fair. Which laws would more closely relate to the criteria, "that which regulate what individuals may or may not do with their bodies"? Those laws which involve harm on oneself, or others, seem to be the only laws I can think of which relate to that criteria. Thanks.
0 Replies
 
Night Ripper
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2010 05:43 pm
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;173546 wrote:
Well, I'm not sure if we can use that argument - that it is injustice to tell people what they may or may not do with their bodies. That's very common in law, if not the basis for many laws. I mean, murder, in a way, is an enforcement of what people may not do with their bodies (and otherwise). I can't, for instance, strangle someone with my hands without having legal ramifications. And what about driving drunk? Is it an injustice that I am instructed by law not to drive (doing something with my body) while drunk? What about sexual harassment? Is it an injustice that I am instructed by law not to grab a stranger's ass whilst walking down the street?


Those are all examples of things that cause physical harm to others, have the potential to cause physical harm to others or at least encroach upon the persons of others.

"The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins." -Oliver Wendell Holmes

How does someone not wearing a seat belt fit with the above? Perhaps after their lifeless body is ejected from a moving vehicle it could be a safety hazard to others? Of course, that still means the laws regarding motorcycles are inconsistent. We better outlaw those too.
0 Replies
 
Zetherin
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2010 05:48 pm
@Night Ripper,
Night Ripper wrote:
How does someone not wearing a seat belt fit with the above? Perhaps after their lifeless body is ejected from a moving vehicle it could be a safety hazard to others? Of course, that still means the laws regarding motorcycles are inconsistent. We better outlaw those too.


Well, I think, in some cases, it has to do with that the fact that others may be held responsible, at least legally, for your death. For instance, a car company may be held responsible for a death, if it can be proven that a car had a faulty seatbelt (this is but one example). This is why it is required to fasten your seatbelt on airplanes (when the fasten seatbelt light is on). There is a fiduciary responsibility to keep you safe.

PS: Did the both of you quote that same passage by coincidence?
Night Ripper
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2010 05:54 pm
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;173580 wrote:
Well, I think, in some cases, it has to do with that the fact that others may be held responsible, at least legally, for your death. For instance, a car company may be held responsible for a death, if it can be proven that a car had a faulty seatbelt (this is but one example). This is why it is required to fasten your seatbelt on airplanes (when the fasten seatbelt light is on). There is a fiduciary responsibility to keep you safe.


The seat belts on airplanes are there in case of turbulence but any accidents caused by turbulance are considered acts of God and therefore the airlines aren't responsible. You can't sue them for that even if you don't wear a seat belt.
Zetherin
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2010 05:55 pm
@Night Ripper,
Night Ripper;173585 wrote:
The seat belts on airplanes are there in case of turbulence but any accidents caused by turbulance are considered acts of God and therefore the airlines aren't responsible. You can't sue them for that even if you don't wear a seat belt.


Oh, I didn't know that. I thought there were instances where you could sue them, depending if there was negligence.

Then let us go back to the car example. Fiduciary responsible in some cases.
Amperage
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2010 06:00 pm
@Night Ripper,
Night Ripper;173361 wrote:
Can someone explain to me what gives us the right to tell other adults they have to protect themselves?
why do they make me have have to have 2 headlights....or headlights at all when I drive? Heck why don't they let me drink and drive?

I think the fact that there are so many others(and by others I mean people who are not in your vehicle) traveling in a confined(roads) field which, at its weight and velocity, can kill people with ease, it only makes sense. While you have control over your salt intake, you don't have control over joe blow next to you who may slam into you. Meanwhile, you are in a vehicle which was designed by people and on a road which was designed by people and traveling at a speed which was designated by people all of whom may be held liable.
Zetherin
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2010 06:01 pm
@Amperage,
Amperage;173589 wrote:
why do they make me have have to have 2 headlights....or headlights at all when I drive?


So that others can be warned of your coming.
0 Replies
 
Night Ripper
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2010 06:01 pm
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;173587 wrote:
Oh, I didn't know that. I thought there were instances where you could sue them, depending if there was negligence.

Then let us go back to the car example. Fiduciary responsible in some cases.


You can sue based on negligence, if the flight attendant runs you over with a drink cart for example. As for product failures of seat belts, I'm not sure what that has to do with actually wearing a seat belt. Surely you can't sue them over your choice not to wear a seat belt?
Zetherin
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2010 06:04 pm
@Night Ripper,
Night Ripper;173591 wrote:
You can sue based on negligence, if the flight attendant runs you over with a drink cart for example. As for product failures of seat belts, I'm not sure what that has to do with actually wearing a seat belt. Surely you can't sue them over your choice not to wear a seat belt?


Yes, I suppose the only responsibility they have, is making sure the safety precautions are there and in working order.

So, you're right, and I can't think of any other reason why it is illegal to not wear a seatbelt. It is some sort of humanitarian/moral hybrid law Smile

Maybe someone else can offer up some better reasons.
Jebediah
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2010 06:36 pm
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;173594 wrote:
Yes, I suppose the only responsibility they have, is making sure the safety precautions are there and in working order.

So, you're right, and I can't think of any other reason why it is illegal to not wear a seatbelt. It is some sort of humanitarian/moral hybrid law Smile

Maybe someone else can offer up some better reasons.


Humanitarian is quite sufficient...

A common example is one of the damaged bridge. A man who only speaks Japanese is about to walk out onto the bridge, and you (knowing a lot about bridges) can see that he is about to fall to his death when it collapses. Are you morally justified in using physical force to prevent him from stepping out onto the bridge?

It boggles my mind that people will say no to this, but I figure they are just stubborn. Or perhaps some combination of overly enamored with a poorly thought out principle + lacking a vivid imagination.
Night Ripper
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2010 06:43 pm
@Jebediah,
Jebediah;173608 wrote:
A common example is one of the damaged bridge. A man who only speaks Japanese is about to walk out onto the bridge, and you (knowing a lot about bridges) can see that he is about to fall to his death when it collapses. Are you morally justified in using physical force to prevent him from stepping out onto the bridge?


There is a difference between making an informed decision and an uninformed decision. If the person knows the dangers involved then it's their choice. That's why we should let people that know the risks involved with not wearing a seat belt take them.
0 Replies
 
Zetherin
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2010 06:45 pm
@Night Ripper,
Jebediah wrote:
A man who only speaks Japanese is about to walk out onto the bridge, and you (knowing a lot about bridges) can see that he is about to fall to his death when it collapses


Yes, but this is not analogous, since people know about the repercussions of not wearing a seat belt. It isn't as if people don't understand what the dangers are, like the Japanese man didn't. If you communicated that the bridge is damaged, he understands, and yet he still goes over, you're no longer morally responsible.
Jebediah
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2010 07:00 pm
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;173611 wrote:
Yes, but this is not analogous, since people know about the repercussions of not wearing a seat belt. It isn't as if people don't understand what the dangers are, like the Japanese man didn't. If you communicated that the bridge is damaged, he understands, and yet he still goes over, you're no longer morally responsible.


But people don't know the repercussions of not wearing a seat belt.

Let's consider the bridge scenario again. Let's say he was walking towards it, and you said:

"The bridge is damaged, you will fall to your death"

And he nodded and kept walking. Could you responsibly assume that he understood you? That would be a ludicrous assumption.

Can you tell me what it is like to be in a car accident? We have a blind spot for future events. Can you tell me what it is like to be addicted to heroin? I doubt it.

We have age laws because we admit that, before a certain age, people cannot responsibly make certain decisions. But there isn't always an age where they become capable of making certain decisions.
0 Replies
 
Zetherin
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2010 07:03 pm
@Night Ripper,
Jebediah wrote:
But people don't know the repercussions of not wearing a seat belt.


They don't? I thought it was common knowledge.

Quote:
Can you tell me what it is like to be in a car accident? We have a blind spot for future events. Can you tell me what it is like to be addicted to heroin? I doubt it.


Sure I can. That I have never experienced something, does not mean that I cannot know what it is like to experience said thing. I've never placed my foot in molten steel before, but I believe that it would cause my foot great pain. And though I've never been addicted to heroin either, I can tell you what withdrawal feels like, based on my research.

Quote:
We have age laws because we admit that, before a certain age, people cannot responsibly make certain decisions. But there isn't always an age where they become capable of making certain decisions.


Well, there is another issue. Age. Maybe we can get into that one.
Jebediah
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2010 07:10 pm
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;173618 wrote:
They don't? I thought it was common knowledge.

Sure I can. That I have never experienced something, does not mean that I cannot know what it is like to experience said thing. I've never placed my foot in molten steel before, but I believe that it would cause my foot great pain. And though I've never been addicted to heroin either, I can research what withdrawal would feel like.


No, I think this is false. A blind man cannot know what it is like to see through a description.

It takes incredible skill to convey feeling through words alone. And that is only effective at all because it uses the memories we have of actual experiences.

Quote:
Well, there is another issue. Age. Maybe we can get into that one.


I think it is the same reasoning. I mean, we are discussing paternalism. We accept that parents can tell their children what to do. In some ways we never grow up. So in our responsible moments, we pass laws that hopefully make us do the things we know we should do.
0 Replies
 
Zetherin
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2010 07:17 pm
@Night Ripper,
Jebediah wrote:
No, I think this is false.


So, you have absolutely no idea how a human would feel if he/she stuck their foot in molten steel?

We have the ability to vicariously experience, and understand, others' experiences, Jeb. How do you think empathy is possible? We're able to share the feelings of another, even if we aren't going through what that person is going through.
Jebediah
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2010 07:24 pm
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;173625 wrote:
So, you have absolutely no idea how a human would feel if he/she stuck their foot in molten steel?

We have the ability to vicariously experience, and understand, what others' experiences are like, Jeb. How do you think empathy is possible? We're able to share the feelings of another, even if we aren't going through what that person is going through.


Wait, wait, where did I say "absolutely no idea"? But there is having "some idea" and having enough understanding to make a responsible decision. I mean, I have some idea of how to fly a plane, but I would not do so (and should not be legally allowed to do so at this time).

I am sure that "hot, with seering pain" does not describe putting your foot in molten steel. With a little more imagination, I can assume that the air would be hot (I have felt hot air before, and perhaps it would be like that). I have singed myself with a match, so I have some idea of being burnt. But, I cannot really know to what lengths I should go to prevent the chance of it happening.
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Seat Belt Laws
  3. » Page 3
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 08/05/2020 at 10:53:52