It could be that they criticise you less because they take a consequentialist view. But there is another factor that could be at work.

I think the bad luck of actually hitting somebody focuses everybody’s attention on the fact that you have taken a risk, and also on the gravity of the risk you took. In other words, people are more likely to condemn you because their attention is drawn to the worst aspects of your behaviour in a way that makes it impossible to deny or ignore.

I think most of us, if we woke up in the morning and realised that we had driven home drunk the night before, would criticise ourselves first of all for taking the risk of getting caught, rather than for taking the risk of injuring or killing someone. Being caught is the greater risk in the sense that it is the more likely to happen. (Although, obviously, killing someone is the greater risk in the sense that, if it does happen, it has the most profound consequences.)

We’re in a little bit of denial about the risk of killing someone. I can hold my drink, can’t I? So I’m perfectly safe - well, safe-ish - if I’m one or two over the limit, though of course if I’m breathalysed I’ll still be pinged. So I’m going to see the risk as one of being caught, rather than as one of killing someone.

And, if we take that view of our own behaviour, then we’ll be tolerant of other people taking that view of their behaviour.

But I think that denying or ignoring what we do, or what others do, doesn’t change its moral quality. You took the same risk, you were equally careless, whether or not anyone noticed it, or commented on it to you, in the same way that you took the same risk whether or not you actually hit anyone. Whether you are blameworthy is not quite the same question as whether you are actually blamed.

Consider: is playing Russian roulette more morally defensible if the hammer falls on an empty chamber, and less so if it falls on a live round?

arry,

I condemn you for drink driving. Period end of story. you don't have to damage something or injure something.

kookaburra,

I condemn you for driving. Period end of story. you don't have to damage something or injure something.

arry,

Thats okay, i don't mind.

But i condemned you based on the act of drink driving not on the how lucky you were not to have suffered any adverse consequence.

As for your Russian roulette example, its just chlorine in the gene pool. Some might say the shallow end of the gene pool.

But i condemned you based on the act of driving not on the how lucky you were not to have suffered any adverse consequence.

By the way when did I say i drink drive?

OK. Let me piece my way through this:

1. Arry is advocating a consequentialist morality. He suggests that a drink driver who actually injures somebody is more morally responsible than the drink driver who doesn’t.

2. Kookaburra counters that the act to be condemned is the risk taken by driving drunk. The act is not made better or worse by the good or bad fortune of hitting someone or not hitting someone.

3. Arry counters in turn that the same could be said of driving while not drunk; there’s a risk of death or injury involved.

4. Since Arry has previously said that he takes a consequentialist view, I presume his absolutist position in relation to sober driving is not meant seriously; he intends it to show that Kookaburra's absolutist position on drunk driving is absurd.

But, arry, when it comes to driving while not drunk [and while not otherwise careless, incompetent, etc], we do say that the moral quality of the act is the same, whether or not death or injury results.

No matter how careful, skilled etc we are, there is an irreducible core of risk to others in taking to the roads in a car, which is greater than the risk of taking to the road on a bicycle, on foot, in a bus, etc.

You might question whether that risk is justified by the social advantages of mobility, etc, afforded by driving. But, if you take the view that it is justified (and I think most people take this view) then it doesn’t become unjustified because, through a sheer accident for which no-one is to blame (and, yes, such accidents do happen; that’s why we comprehensive insurance was invented) someone is injured or killed.

In other words, the morality of taking the risk of driving does not depend on whether anyone is killed or injured. It depends on whether the risk of death or injury is small enough to be justified by other considerations. In short, we do take an absolutist position in relation to sober driving. There is nothing absurd about it.

Your condemnation of sober driving appears absurd not because it is absolutist, but because it finds the risk of sober driving not to be outweighed by the advantages, a conclusion with which very few people would agree.

I think this is the real moral difference between drunk driving and sober driving; one involves a small risk which is [generally considered to be] justifiable, the other a large risk which is [generally considered to be] unjustifiable.

So if, with sober driving, the justified risk doesn’t become unjustified if the driver has the bad luck to hit someone, why should the moral quality of the risk of drunk driving change if the driver has the bad luck to hit someone?

Or would you argue that the sober, careful skilled driver is to be condemned at fault if he hits someone through absolutely no fault of his own? That would at least be consistent consequentialism!

Pergrinus

That seems like a reasonable analysis.

As clarification I dondemn anyone for drink driving its not limited to arry.

As for why I singled him out as an example



I didn't want him to labour under the misconception he would only be condemned for injuring someone while driving drunk. Some people will condemn anyone for drink driving regardless of how lucky they are.

Thank you for that very accurate summary.

To clarify:

1) My point is, the drunk driver should not be held responsible for killing someone by default, I think it depends on the circumstances of the accident as to whether they are 100% responsible. What I was trying to challenge was this 'assumption' of innocence. While I recognise that in this particular case the woman was 'innocent', I think we need to recognise that in the 'real world' blame/ responsibility regarding an accident CAN be more complex than that, and of course it can be just as simple.

2) I agree that the driver is 100% responsible for the crash if the lady was walking on the footpath, as i have already stated.

3) I would agree the other driver should be seen as irresponsible and is responsible for, as you say peregnius, taking an 'unnacceptable risk'. I do wonder though, how much more of a risk it is than driving normally? And I confess i found it amusing that many of the justifications kookaburra used could also be used against normal driving (as you saw from the above arguments).

I was playing devil's advocate to try and illustrate the point that just because someone is drink driving, doesn't mean they are responsible for the accident. It does depend on the circumstances. Obviously though, if the pedestrian is innoccent, as is the case in this hypothetical, it's pretty clear- cut.

Ohms



Guilty of what?

The fact that I sleep in bed when I'm tired has no bearing on driving while impaired?