Moral Luck

There are two drunk drivers (A nd B). One driving North. The other South. Both drivers are the same height and weight and have the same tolerance to alcohol.

An elderly pedestrian steps into the road in front of driver A at exactly the same time as a young man steps into the path of driver B.

The driver's reactions are exactly the same - except driver A hits the old man but the young man jumps out of the way of driver B just in time. The old man dies.

Both drivers are caught and arrested by the police.

Morally speaking, is driver A more blameworthy?
Should driver A get a greater sentence for his actions even though he had no control over the outcome?

yep he killed a bloke the other didnt its called tough shit.

In a perfect world they should get the same stiff sentence, but for some reason they are classed as totally different offences.

Murder and attempted murder are separate offences too. Ultimately, killing someone is always going to be perceived in law as worse than not killing someone.

Angry Dad knows his stuff. That is, in fact, tough shit.

Driver A will be prosecuted and sentanced more harshly than B due to actually killing someone.

Even in an ideal world a death would be treated more harshly than anything else. But also in an ideal world cars would be fitted with breathalyser starters (which will be synchronised to specfic drivers) and neither would be driving to begin with.

bwfc71 wrote:
But also in an ideal world cars would be fitted with breathalyser starters (which will be synchronised to specfic drivers) and neither would be driving to begin with.

Bloody hell, I'm glad I don't live in your draconian vision of an ideal world.

For many that would be a logical extension of todays laws. Such as in America, where drivers agree to have cameras installed in their cars, mostly to prove their innocence when in an accident. Was there not a fitting in some British cars a few years ago, that could detect when a driver was drowsy, and alerting him/her.?

You could make the case that having cameras in every street, or a microchip and GPS tracker installed under the skin of every citizen, would also reduce crime. I'd rather keep my civil liberties thanks, I'm not a criminal.

I agree, although I think there some areas some places that need them.

My advice is don't drink and drive. If you want to keep death off the roads then it's best to drive on the pavement.

largehat wrote:

bwfc71 wrote:
But also in an ideal world cars would be fitted with breathalyser starters (which will be synchronised to specfic drivers) and neither would be driving to begin with.

Bloody hell, I'm glad I don't live in your draconian vision of an ideal world.

I actually had one fitted for a while - but I was being paid by the government to do so - approximately 180 a month I was getting for 18 months! A nice little earner!



From what I can gather they actually use it in Canada for those who have been done for drink driving - but its not a permanent fixture. For example if you are just over the limit then its fixed in the car for about 12 months, rather than losing a licence. If 3 times over the limit, or above, then it is a permanent fixture for at least 5 years, after getting licence back.

Basically you cannot start your engine until you breath into the device and if its clear then it lets you turn on the rngine. If not it then disables the car and you then have to call out an engineer to un-disable it.

largehat wrote:You could make the case that having cameras in every street, or a microchip and GPS tracker installed under the skin of every citizen, would also reduce crime. I'd rather keep my civil liberties thanks, I'm not a criminal.

Criminals always say that. If you have nothing to hide you wouldn't object to being microchipped like dogs are.

It would cut crime and terrorism in half overnight.

Nat, that would work if evryone in the world were treated like this. Just for us wouldn't make a blind bit of difference.

gloswhite wrote:Nat, that would work if evryone in the world were treated like this. Just for us wouldn't make a blind bit of difference.

Of course it would. If Largehat was chipped and decided to rob the local Spar he wouldn't be able to say he was at home with Hipster, the chip would prove where he was.

True, but you would need visual confirmation, be it a camera or eyeballing. Besides, you wouldn't need that, because the loud discussions and disagreements between the two would make them stand out to any passers-by

gloswhite wrote:True, but you would need visual confirmation, be it a camera or eyeballing. Besides, you wouldn't need that, because the loud discussions and disagreements between the two would make them stand out to any passers-by

Spar have cameras. Largehat is banged to rights.

Ok, fair enough, and his sentence for such a foul and heinous crime? After all, if people are going to be watched and tracked all their lives, and still commit crimes, what would you suggest, a physical one, or financial one. The alternative is to let him go to court, where they will slap his wrist, and send him home.