The Philosophy of Drunk Driving

It's been my understanding that laws are generally put into place to prevent undesired behaviours. This is accomplished by making the punishment for being caught high enough to disuade people from doing it.

The notion that one's drunkeness has to be measured on a case-by-case basis instead of the baseline already established only makes it easier to put people at risk. The broad enforcement of laws instead of a case-by-case interpretation makes law enforcement much more feasible in general. It may not always feel fair, or right, but it is a practical solution.

I agree that driving drunk only increases your odds of driving poorly, instead of being a one-way trip to an accident, it is still practical to outlaw it. If I feel that I can reach around to grab something from the backseat and steer with my butt, doesn't guarantee that I'll be in an accident, but I shouldn't be allowed to just give it a shot. What about driving with my eyes closed? I mean, I might make it, right?

So while, in an abstract way, I like the idea of having the kind of freedom suggested by Bradylama in this thread, I don't think it'd work out for the best. Society on the whole has decided that it wasn't worth the risk, hence the laws governing it. And I like the alternative presented in judging all trafic cases with a heavy modifier for one's being drunk or not, it'd be hard to argue for. Instead of the catch-all 'no drunk driving' situation, we'd have the jail-time *if* you get caught situation. I propose that unless the penalty for being charged with having done X while driving drunk is extremely high (15 years prison time?), the catch-all solution would do more to prevent incidents.

It's funny, I kinda like the argument about firing into the sky. I mean, there is a chance that you won't hit anyone/anything that isn't yours, right? It's just a case of probabilities.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

Essentially, so is reckless driving. The difference between drunk driving, reckless driving, and the bullets, however, is that drunk driving only increases the likelihood of there being a danger. With bad driving and the bullets, though, the danger is immediate.

Drunk driving = bad driving.

If you chose to drive recklessly (criminally recklessly), you'll be charged. If you drive drunk, you are driving recklessly even if you don't feel it to be so. It's a seperate charge, but same principle applies.

I don't see how one can support the freedom to drive drunk without also supporting driving with blatant disregard to other's safety.

There's nowhere I can't reach.