Yes, I'm serious. I really am opening a discussion on whether speeding is morally wrong. (And yes, I'm looking for a semi-serious discussion, not pages of puns and trolling, as fun as that can be.)
Now, for the purpose of this thread, we're talking about speeding in an automobile, on public roads, where there is a posted speed limit that you are consciously violating. I'm also going to curtail discussion a little by initially opening up the discussion to only moderate speeding - say, 15mph over the speed limit or less. (This is to avoid as many "it depends" answers as possible: I think we could probably all agree that going 120mph in a residential district is wrong, because of the significant potential or hurting others)
Now: I know some of you have probably read the above paragraphs, and thought something along the lines of "Speeding isn't wrong! Duh! What are you smoking Elro?" Hear me out. I think there is at least a decent case to be made that speeding is generally wrong under several moral systems. I think the reason for this is not so much because of some natural law saying going a certain speed in your car is inherently wrong - it's because it's against the law to do so. That's the key here. In a way, speeding is just an example I'm using to ask a question - namely, whether it's wrong to break the law for personal convenience even when no individual rights are violated, or natural laws broken. This is the key point I'm trying to make - I don't want to argue about speeding limits. I'm interested whether you all think we have a moral duty to obey the law, so long as doing so doesn't mean acting immorally.
So here's my argument: We, as citizens, have a duty to follow and uphold the laws the laws of the state, so long as by doing so we are not forced to do morally wrong things ourselves. Since the supposed purpose of speed limits is to protect the citizenry, and don't to violate any clear moral duties, virtues, or rights, they cannot be said to be immoral commands. Since by speeding we are violating the legitimate dictates of the state, we can be said to be violating our duty to the state, and thus committing a moral wrong. (Although granted, it's an infinitesimal wrong - perhaps less serious than a "white lie" like telling your girlfriend that no, that dress does not make her look fat)
So: what do you all have to say? Do you think speeding is wrong, or morally neutral? (Or a positive moral act?) Do you care at all?
Now, for the purpose of this thread, we're talking about speeding in an automobile, on public roads, where there is a posted speed limit that you are consciously violating. I'm also going to curtail discussion a little by initially opening up the discussion to only moderate speeding - say, 15mph over the speed limit or less. (This is to avoid as many "it depends" answers as possible: I think we could probably all agree that going 120mph in a residential district is wrong, because of the significant potential or hurting others)
Now: I know some of you have probably read the above paragraphs, and thought something along the lines of "Speeding isn't wrong! Duh! What are you smoking Elro?" Hear me out. I think there is at least a decent case to be made that speeding is generally wrong under several moral systems. I think the reason for this is not so much because of some natural law saying going a certain speed in your car is inherently wrong - it's because it's against the law to do so. That's the key here. In a way, speeding is just an example I'm using to ask a question - namely, whether it's wrong to break the law for personal convenience even when no individual rights are violated, or natural laws broken. This is the key point I'm trying to make - I don't want to argue about speeding limits. I'm interested whether you all think we have a moral duty to obey the law, so long as doing so doesn't mean acting immorally.
So here's my argument: We, as citizens, have a duty to follow and uphold the laws the laws of the state, so long as by doing so we are not forced to do morally wrong things ourselves. Since the supposed purpose of speed limits is to protect the citizenry, and don't to violate any clear moral duties, virtues, or rights, they cannot be said to be immoral commands. Since by speeding we are violating the legitimate dictates of the state, we can be said to be violating our duty to the state, and thus committing a moral wrong. (Although granted, it's an infinitesimal wrong - perhaps less serious than a "white lie" like telling your girlfriend that no, that dress does not make her look fat)
So: what do you all have to say? Do you think speeding is wrong, or morally neutral? (Or a positive moral act?) Do you care at all?
