[*BCM*] dbl parked

[John Hays]

Hiroyuki:

"Two wrongs don't make a right" is a moral maxim that actually means 
something on its own terms. To covertly attempt to redefine the common 
meaning of the maxim by making it NOT about "wrongness" in the 
conventional sense would be rather, well, strange. I think it's 
infinitely more plausible that the phrase was meant in its conventional 
sense, but that the further assumption was made that the legality or 
illegality of an action constitutes a legitimate moral statement about 
an action -- which was what the substance of my post was addressed to. 
Curiously enough, your assertion below that:

-----------------------------------------------------

If anything, all 4 should be punished 
to the severity that the crime warrants, with no externalities 
introduced from neighboring crimes. 
----------------------------------------

actually seems to implicitly assume that legality constitutes a legitimate statement about the morality of an action, since a "crime" should NOT BE PUNISHED AT ALL unless it is, in fact, legitimately wrong, and not just illegal.  If it's not wrong to run a red light on a bicycle under the conditions stated, then it's wrong to punish such an action, even if it's illegal. 

Now, I completely agree that you're not likely to get very far arguing this with a police officer -- after all, they're foot soldiers for a giant criminal organization. But it behooves us as moral agents to recognize whether an action is actually wrong, regardless of its legal status -- and as a necessary consequence of this, when it's wrong for the Big Bad Boys in Blue to enforce a prohibition against that action. At the very least, people should be aware of the absurdity of trying to justify punishment on the basis of "zee rules are zee rules." 

- John 





Hiroyuki Yamada wrote:
> I think, for the purpose of the discussion at hand, (correct me if I am 
> mistaken) the definition of "wrong," in Thom3's original comment, is 
> simply an infraction of the law. Regardless of the somewhat questionable 
> nature of "wrong" vs "right," which inherently bring into view a 
> significantly more clouded discussion, the legality of a certain action 
> is much simpler to determine. And in this case, the running of the red 
> light is, in essence, wrong. The fact that another guy over there is 
> double parked, that another car is driving in a non-existent lane, that 
> someone just drove through the (now) green light going 5 miles over the 
> speed limit, all of these have no bearing on the fact that running the 
> red light was wrong to begin with, and the other crimes are not excuse 
> for the cyclist to get off easy. If anything, all 4 should be punished 
> to the severity that the crime warrants, with no externalities 
> introduced from neighboring crimes.
>
> When you're dealing with the police, more often than not, "zee rules are 
> zee rules" is about as far as you can get; they're probably not too 
> interested in debating moral philosophy, or even legislative intent, and 
> would probably just like to get on with their day. (Granted, some police 
> officers may be over-zealous in their interpretation of certain laws 
> against others (leading to racism and other forms of bias), but that 
> again is a separate issue.)
>
> --Yuki
>
> John Hays wrote:
>   
>> I tend to agree that people trot out "two wrongs don't make a right" in 
>> situations where it basically amounts to a non-sequitur, largely on the 
>> basis that it's relevance assumes something being contested (that some 
>> action in question is in fact a wrong). I will say that it's not 
>> particularly clear to me that riding through an intersection under those 
>> circumstances is, in any meaningful sense, a wrong. It may very well be 
>> that it's _against the law_ to do that, but that's just another 
>> non-sequitur, since the fact that something is against the law is not 
>> evidence of it being wrong. I shudder to think how many people (even on 
>> this list) actually believe that "zee rules are zee rules" is a 
>> sufficient justification for the deliberate infliction of suffering upon 
>> or deprivation of material assets from a person.
>>
>> - John
>>
>>
>>
>> Jym Dyer wrote:
>>   
>>     
>>>>>> 2 wrongs don't make a right.
>>>>>>         
>>>>>>           
>>>>>>             
>>>>> =v= Ain't it wonderful how this particular topic always
>>>>> brings out fresh, invigorating new insights?
>>>>>       
>>>>>         
>>>>>           
>>>> And just what are your fresh insights?
>>>>     
>>>>       
>>>>         
>>> =v= Here's a tip:  When you find yourself regurgitating the
>>> world's most obvious clichés for the umpteenth time, as if
>>> the person you're responding to is a blithering idiot, you
>>> are wasting your time (and the time of everyone else who
>>> might be wearing of a cliché-filled inbox).  Perhaps the
>>> person really is a blithering idiot, in which case your
>>> words are useless; but what's more likely is that you're
>>> not attempting to understand what the person is getting
>>> at, in which case your communication is pointless.
>>>     <_Jym_>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Boston Critical Mass mailing list
>>> list at bostoncriticalmass.org
>>> http://bostoncriticalmass.org/list
>>> To unsubscribe email list-unsubscribe at bostoncriticalmass.org
>>>     
>>>       
>> _______________________________________________
>> Boston Critical Mass mailing list
>> list at bostoncriticalmass.org
>> http://bostoncriticalmass.org/list
>> To unsubscribe email list-unsubscribe at bostoncriticalmass.org
>>     
> _______________________________________________
> Boston Critical Mass mailing list
> list at bostoncriticalmass.org
> http://bostoncriticalmass.org/list
> To unsubscribe email list-unsubscribe at bostoncriticalmass.org