The Philosophy of Drunk Driving

The difference between degrees of murder and manslaughter is not the crime itself, but the intent and the cause of the crime.

Similarly, a person who drives drunk receives a harsher punishment than someone who doesn't drive drunk but does the same harm.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Staying on the traffic topic...

We have red lights, and it is illegal to run a red light. A police officer could pull you over for that. But what if you run a red light and don't hurt anyone? I mean, the law that a person must stop at a red light is not necessarily going to lead to someone not being injured. It is a preventative law.

So, we make it legal to run red lights and only prosecute people when their action causes a wreck.

Sound plausible?

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Your last point is illogical because murder laws are not made by design to prevent the act, but to punish the act.


That seems to be the main point hinged on the article (although I agree with the point about state's rights), that the law should not be allowed to have preventative measures in it, that we should only make harm illegal and not the causes of harm.

I wonder what the author's view on conspiracy to commit ____ is (even though that has the added intent of harm, while you can't say the same for drunk driving).

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

I actually think you can put a loaded gun in a nursery and wouldn't get charged unless someone got hurt or killed.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?