Applying a ethical theory to see if I support a road safety campaign
Round my way there's a campaign to get people to drive at 20 miles per hour in residential streets.
I want people to drive more slowly. It's no fun being run over. Although when I got 4x4d the mental scares of being called a 'middle aged man' in the local paper were worse than the physical injuries.
The campaign takes the form of mock speed signs - 20 in a circle. It is the nature of these signs, rather than the slow down campaign in general, that I 'asked' Immanuel Kant about and he's not so sure they are moral.
Categorical imperative - what if everyone did that?
Kant's test of good was that you must apply universally the general rule of your action. Would it be good if everyone acted like you? It's the moral justification parents reach for when telling children not to drop litter.
I think in this case there is a danger of confusing drivers with mock road signs. They are designed to look like normal speed signs. If every street produced their own different instructions, drivers would be speeding up, slowing down, turning left, not turning left at the whim of each resident, potentially.
This might be more dangerous.
* Note added later: Have I got this wrong? Kant's type of ethics isn't based on the consequences, it is based on reasoning in a vacuum. Someone clever help me out here?
No comments:
Post a Comment