While conformity is good for the masses, sometimes it is tough on the spirit. Ever been driving down a lonely unmarked country road at night, and slid the car into the middle of the road, rather than hugging the right side? Why not? If there is no oncoming traffic and no line in the road, what’s the harm? No blood, no foul. Those that have share a more consequentialist view of right and wrong than someone who prescribes to a deontologist point of view.
The difference in these two perspectives is in why they drive where they drive. A deontologist is most likely to stay on the right side of the road because that is what they are supposed to do and doing anything else would be wrong. This type of thinking makes good sense, considering that any oncoming cars would expect you to be on your side of the road and not meandering down the middle. Situations like these can be dangerous to both drivers.
It is interesting to compare these two schools of thought in this situation. While both are equally concerned with right and wrong, they have different outlooks on exactly what that means. The consequentialist feels that they only commit a wrong if their driving decision affects a situation. The deontologist, however, feels like they have committed a wrong when they move their car out of the lane it should be in, even if they never see another car on the road as long as they live.
Looking at it like this, I think it is probably much smarter to have a deontologist writing our traffic laws than a consequentialist.
No comments:
Post a Comment