Do people really not get it?

"BugEyedBimmer - back in the Saddle Dakota Leather" (bugeyedacura) 01/07/2015 at 16:09 • Filed to: None

5

14

One of my FB friends liked a post defending a drunk driver. The post said that a woman SHOULDNT get manslaughter for wrecking her car and killing a passenger. Oh yeah, the woman's BAC was 2.5 times the legal limit here in VA. I'm sorry, but there's all kinds of shit she should be brought up on. Manslaughter is being nice in my opinion.

pauljones > BugEyedBimmer - back in the Saddle Dakota Leather 01/07/2015 at 16:12

2

Kant: 1, Bentham: 0

Points if you get that reference: 1,000,000,000,000,000

Dwhite - Powered by Caffeine, Daft Punk, and Corgis > BugEyedBimmer - back in the Saddle Dakota Leather 01/07/2015 at 16:13

1

I love to hear the reasoning behind why she shouldnt be charged. Fits pretty damn well with manslaughter.

AM3R shamefully returns > BugEyedBimmer - back in the Saddle Dakota Leather 01/07/2015 at 16:21

4

people are IDIOTS

JGrabowMSt > BugEyedBimmer - back in the Saddle Dakota Leather 01/07/2015 at 16:24

6

The only proper action here is to unfriend them on facebook, block their number, and never speak to them again.

Just like that girl who got a very heavy sentence after stopping for ducks. I will stop for turtles when it's safe to, I'll even hook a U-Turn and pick them up to get them off the road (and have), but honestly, if it's not safe to do it, I'll do my best to avoid it and go on with my day.

In this case, drunk driving? Sorry, I'm pre-disposed to being a bitter, crotchety old man on this one, but there's no excuse. Fuck her, fuck anyone that thinks she doesn't deserve the maximum. Whenever something involves a drunk person behind the wheel, I have no remorse. I don't have to defend that to anyone, just know that it's how I am.

505Turbeaux > BugEyedBimmer - back in the Saddle Dakota Leather 01/07/2015 at 16:27

2

When I caught my DWI I deserved every bit of what they gave me. I only murdered several stop signs and a perfectly good Escort LX though

RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht > pauljones 01/07/2015 at 16:28

0

Bentham would be curious as to how useful the passenger was... maybe.

Bentham only gets bonus points for the whole ghoulish use of body after death thing.

zeontestpilot > BugEyedBimmer - back in the Saddle Dakota Leather 01/07/2015 at 16:37

2

If she was driving, she needs to be held responsible. Alcohol can impair you, and slow down your reaction time. Driving a car requires you to be alert and active. Plain and simple.

pauljones > RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht 01/07/2015 at 17:39

0

Kind of.

If you had to sum up the one major, high-level philosophical difference between the two in one massively over-simplified juxtaposition, it would be as follows:

Kantianism more or less holds that it is the intent of the action(s) that matters, irrespective of the end result. Utilitarianism, on the other hands, asserts that nothing but the end result matters.

In this instance, our legal system went with the Utilitarian approach - the woman may not have intended to kill her passenger, but she did, and thus she is being punished for that. I haven't read the post defending the woman, but if I had to guess, it is likely an argument that she should get a lesser punishment because she never intended to kill anyone - thus somewhat adhering to a more Kantian perspective.

RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht > pauljones 01/07/2015 at 17:48

1

I'd argue that Kant would push for severe consequences regardless, even if not the manslaughter charge per se, since the categorical imperative would presumably hold that driving at 2.5x the legal limit is *categorically* wrong, regardless of specific consequence - simply because this sort of consequence in is extremely predictable in the general case. The specific act of driving while extremely intoxicated with a passenger is... not broadly excusable any way you slice it, even under a postmodern ethic "beyond" either Bentham or Kant.

Edit to clear up: I'm not meaning to say I disagree with you, I just didn't quite get your intent (ha!) from an initial read because Kant's preferred way of discerning intent had somewhat to do with identifying things by type and predictability, not just intent per se. Acts which are repeatedly wrong due to pattern - the weight of "you should have known better".

That Bastard Kurtis - An Attempt to Standardize My Username Across Platforms > BugEyedBimmer - back in the Saddle Dakota Leather 01/07/2015 at 17:56

3

She's 100% right, the driver shouldn't be charged with manslaughter. Because killing somebody while drunk driving is fucking murder.

Biggus Dickus (RevsBro) > pauljones 01/07/2015 at 18:01

0

Wow, someone else actually remebers PHIL 1001.

Dr. Zoidberg - RIP Oppo > BugEyedBimmer - back in the Saddle Dakota Leather 01/07/2015 at 19:38

2

The less you know about people, the more likely you won't be incredibly disgusted with them.

gogmorgo - rowing gears in a Grand Cherokee > BugEyedBimmer - back in the Saddle Dakota Leather 01/07/2015 at 19:46

1

Someone posted on my university's confession page about their car getting impounded for 30 days for an undisclosed offense. I responded with a "this is entirely your fault, it's the response to a serious safety problem, and wouldn't have happened if you were more responsible, and the rules are there to keep everyone safe" sort of comment. I just got a bunch of hate and "warning dad rant" comments back.

pauljones > RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht 01/07/2015 at 21:00

0

I took no offense. I had intentionally gone with a super over-simplified juxtaposition of one aspect of their respective philosophies because I didn't think anyone here would even catch that much.

I stand corrected, and yes, I agree with your deeper analysis. A simple univeral maxim stating that driving drunk is categorically wrong would have given Kant plenty of ammunition for attempting to throw the book at the woman.

However, as with anything, it also leaves such a position in a precarious place depending on context or interpretation. After all, the idea of a universal maxim is exactly that - it's universal. Although, in this case, I personally would hard pressed to argue that particular one.

A pleasure to know someone caught the philosophical reference.