Speeding, test pipes, and morality
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 22,888
Likes: 3
From: Covington WA, USA
Originally Posted by Kyushin,Jan 20 2007, 06:24 PM
And FTW, I dont hate cops, I hate pigs, huge difference between the two.
Registered User
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 304
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by shrike,Jan 19 2007, 10:33 PM
Every time someone makes a post here that mentions speeding, a majority of the responses are to the effect that the poster should slow down; some of these are quite strident. A majority of the people on this forum seem to believe that violating posted limits by a lot (basically, more than about 10 over) is immoral because it endangers the health of others.
On the other hand, it seems that a majority of posters feel that it's not immoral to replace (illegally) catalytic converters with test pipes. While many S owners haven't done it, most who have explained their rationale cite the risk of getting caught, or the smell, or the O2 sensors; few seem to consider that is arguably immoral, because polluting more endangers the health of others.
Each law is intended to promote health and safety, yet people's attitudes about violating them seem to be completely different.
Now, I admit to being inconsistent on these matters also, but the other direction: I wouldn't use a test pipe because I believe it's morally wrong to poison other people, even incrementally, when society has deemed such pollution to be unreasonable; but I am perfectly fine with speeding by 20, 30, or 40 over on a regular basis. I don't know why I feel differently about those laws, but I do.
My question for you all: if you feel that speeding is wrong but test pipes are OK, or that test pipes are wrong but speeding is OK... why?
On the other hand, it seems that a majority of posters feel that it's not immoral to replace (illegally) catalytic converters with test pipes. While many S owners haven't done it, most who have explained their rationale cite the risk of getting caught, or the smell, or the O2 sensors; few seem to consider that is arguably immoral, because polluting more endangers the health of others.
Each law is intended to promote health and safety, yet people's attitudes about violating them seem to be completely different.
Now, I admit to being inconsistent on these matters also, but the other direction: I wouldn't use a test pipe because I believe it's morally wrong to poison other people, even incrementally, when society has deemed such pollution to be unreasonable; but I am perfectly fine with speeding by 20, 30, or 40 over on a regular basis. I don't know why I feel differently about those laws, but I do.
My question for you all: if you feel that speeding is wrong but test pipes are OK, or that test pipes are wrong but speeding is OK... why?
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 11,615
Likes: 1
From: North Richland Hills, TX
You cat haters are a piece of work! No, removing your cat will not make a great difference in the grand scheme of things, but if everyone similarly rationalizes why they should be exempt from pollution controls, then it will start adding up. There will always be people and institutions that pollute more than you do, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't try to do your small part to prevent unnecessary pollution. I've love to squeeze a few more HP for $100, but doing it at the expense of illegal incremental pollution, a nasty smelling exhaust, and carbon on my rear bumper isn't worth it.
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 347
Likes: 0
From: Berkeley, CA
Originally Posted by sicks2k9k,Jan 20 2007, 06:54 PM
I think you have to much time on your hand! Who gives a ****?
Registered User
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 304
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by shrike,Jan 20 2007, 07:40 PM
700 views and 65 responses in less than a day; I'm thinking maybe one or two people do care.
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,017
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by shrike,Jan 20 2007, 02:52 AM
So almost everyone replying is among the ones who think one, the other, or both violations are not immoral. (I disagree about the test pipe, but that's another issue.) Where are all the people who jump on the speeders, as happened here?
Poisoning and immoral?
Give me a freaking break.
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 347
Likes: 0
From: Berkeley, CA
Well, I think I'm getting it, at least about the cats. (Can't tell about the speeding, because the people who claim, at least implicitly, that speeding is immoral aren't posting on here. Still, the reasons for thinking speeding is OK have been well summarized.)
The dominant reason I'm seeing for thinking that removing pollution-control equipment is OK is that somebody else (big rigs, buses, non-Hondas, old cars, motorcycles, factories, NASCAR, airplanes, whatever) is polluting more. I think the logic is that the only way it's OK for society to place a limit on my behavior is if it places at least as strict a restriction on literally everyone else. Of course, the practical ramifications of this attitude are obvious, but it's more interesting to me how many people actually articulate this reasoning.
With that in mind, I guess one reason that many people (not posting on this thread) think that speeding is worse than polluting is that speed limits, however arbitrary they may or may not be, are for the most part imposed on everyone approximately equally (in any given place), so violators are exceeding not just society's restriction on them but the limits it has placed on everyone.
Who was the philosopher who thought the duty of a society was to maximize, not total happiness of all citizens (in a Pareto-optimal sense), but the happiness of the least happy citizen? In a sense, this seems like the reverse of that.
The dominant reason I'm seeing for thinking that removing pollution-control equipment is OK is that somebody else (big rigs, buses, non-Hondas, old cars, motorcycles, factories, NASCAR, airplanes, whatever) is polluting more. I think the logic is that the only way it's OK for society to place a limit on my behavior is if it places at least as strict a restriction on literally everyone else. Of course, the practical ramifications of this attitude are obvious, but it's more interesting to me how many people actually articulate this reasoning.
With that in mind, I guess one reason that many people (not posting on this thread) think that speeding is worse than polluting is that speed limits, however arbitrary they may or may not be, are for the most part imposed on everyone approximately equally (in any given place), so violators are exceeding not just society's restriction on them but the limits it has placed on everyone.
Who was the philosopher who thought the duty of a society was to maximize, not total happiness of all citizens (in a Pareto-optimal sense), but the happiness of the least happy citizen? In a sense, this seems like the reverse of that.