Ethical behavior is a choice. Every action in which we have a choice has a
moral character.
Discourse is a path toward ethical behavior. Our notions of what constitute "right and wrong" emerge in the stories we tell about ourselves, others, and our relationships.
We do not invent ethics. We negotiate ethics under a microscope of scrutiny, debate, discussion, and discourse
Ethics is a social enterprise
as the study of morality, ethics is a rational enterprise
Variations on ethical constraint
| Term | Relationship to Speeding | Moral and Ethical Origins of Current Practice | The Role of Negotiation in Current Practice |
| Law | Speeding is against the law. The law generally sets the Interstate highway speed limit to 65, except in densely populated areas, where the speed limit is generally 55. Most states also enforce minimum speed limits of 45 on Interstate highways. |
Speed limits reduce the frequency of accidents because everyone is moving at about the same speed, and thereby have an easier time maneuvering through traffic. Hence harm to property is reduced. Accidents ending in injury and death occur with greater frequency at higher speeds. Lower speed limits have generally been demonstrated to reduce harm to others. Neither the minimization of harm to others nor and the preservation of property are usually cited as elements of the speed limits, but both play a key role in the existence of speed limits. |
While speed limits have been shown to reduce both the frequency of accidents and their severity, they also slow people down as they travel. Lower speed limits (e.g. The old national 55 MPH speed limit) were very controversial, especially in Western States where everything is further apart. This disagreement led to civil disobedience, especially among truck drivers, a general disregard of the 55 MPH speed limit, especially in the west, and even cause some states to risk federal highway funds. The recommended national speed limit was eventually raised. |
| Formal Rule | The National Transportation Safety Board, under laws set by the congress, encourages 65 and 55 as national speed limit values, using the allocation of highway funds as incentive. | Predictable and consistent speed limits make it easier for drivers to observe the law, especially as they cross state lines. By promoting predictable national speed limits, at least on Interstate highways, the NTSB promotes the ethical principle that laws should be sensible and predictable | Under the older laws under which the National Speed Limit was set to 55, the Federal Government had tremendous leverage that could force the states to adopt its recommendations. In the loosening of the rules that allowed states to raise the speed limit, that leverage was reduced, and states given more say in the setting speed limits. |
| Formal Precedent | Most judges recognize that both speedometers and radar equipment have standard deviations such that exact measurement of speed is impossible for either the driver or enforcement agents. Hence they are generally unwilling to convict when the ticketed speed is within 10% of the speed limit and the driver claims not to have been speeding. | The constitutional principle that a person is considered innocent until proven guilty is an expression of the ethical principle of fairness. A judge who is unwilling to convict someone of speeding when the evidence of speeding is marginal (e.g. within the standard deviation of the speedometer and the radar equipment) and the person testifies, under oath, that they were not speeding, is expressing this ethical principle. | The initial arrival of radar speed detection equipment heralded a revolutionary change in speed limit enforcement. With the scientific accuracy of radar detectors, it was presumed that speeding by as little as one mile an hour over the speed limit could be accurately detected, and such tickets were, and occasionally still are, written. In time, however, alleged speeders started to effectively argue questions of speedometer standard deviation, radar detector calibration, effects of surrounding traffic, and even radar detector standard deviation. The success of these bids for a change in the rules resulted in changes in the way speed limits are enforced. |
| Shared Ethic | Most people believe that the safest speed, on an Interstate, or any other road, is the speed everyone else is going. So long as that speed isn't excessively high, most people will prefer moving with traffic to slavishly following the speed limit. | Safety, of self, family, community, and society, is a fundamental human value, and one we will sacrifice to attain and maintain. Conformity, although it can also be dangerous, is reassuring that our decisions are reasonable ones at least insofar as others have reached the same decision. Cooperation is also a shared ethic for desirable behavior. | Going about the same speed that everyone else is a real time negotiation of behavior that has much in common with the xxxxx parable of the porcupines. We may or may not be entirely comfortable with that speed. We might feel more comfortable going faster (if there is someplace we have to be) or slower (if we prefer the speed limit), but we can get comfortable with traffic by fitting in. |
| Informal Rule |
Officers know that judges won't convict on borderline speeding tickets, and wind up setting informal rules of thumb for enforcing the speed limit. Some will even admit having discussed this with other officers, and will tell you that, at 65, they'll give you 10 miles an hour. When, as often happens, we either follow someone to get somewhere or lead someone, we have to match speeds in order to succeed.
|
Officers value, much as we all do, both success and not wasting time. For an officer, success with speeding tickets is measured in convictions. Giving a ticket that is unlikely to result in conviction is a waste of time and is less likely to result in success. We value helpfulness and cooperation. Leading someone to a destination is an act of helpfulness, especially when we are helping someone we don't know. Many coordinated activities, including following in a car, cannot work without mutual cooperation. |
The rule of thumb is a product of continuing interaction between officers, who talk to each other, and the judiciary, who they may also talk with informally. The negotiation also considers context, with less or no standard deviation granted where children are present or road conditions are degraded; more standard deviation granted to emergency vehicles and situations. Finally, officers will frequently plea bargain tickets, a negotiation with the the accused, when tickets are challenged. Following is complicated by numerous factors, including differences in speedometer accuracy. The following car needs to work to keep up, assuming the best of the lead driver. The leading car needs to work to stay where they can be followed, which may mean slowing down and being aware of road conditions that might cause separation. |
| Informal Precedent |
When, as often happens, someone pulls right on our tail and starts blinking there headlights for us to move over, we need to be accommodating without getting mad. This is particularly true when it should be plainly obvious we have no place to go. Sometimes we can't be accommodating, as when there is a truck next to us or on a single lane road that offers no opportunity to safely pull over or otherwise enable the pass. |
We can't know why someone is in a hurry or why they aren't noticing traffic conditions. We can assume the worst, and often do. Road rage is sometimes at least partially the result of this kind of behavior. But we value being cooperative and giving people the benefit of the doubt, even when we doubt their motives and probably can never know them, so we find a way to let them by if we can. We also value safety, and we may act to reduce the danger in the situation if we cannot let them by. |
While most people who have experienced this kind of behavior would never engage in it. When we experience it, however, we need to the best we can to either accommodate the communicated needs of the aggressive driver or enhance the safety of the situation. We try to accommodate the driver by safely pulling over or changing lanes if we can. If cannot, we will try to enhance the safety of the situation by starting to gradually slow down, with, we hope, the minimum effect of reducing the speed at which a collision happens, and the maximum effect of having the aggressive driver take the hint and back off. |
| Personal Ethic | If, for whatever reason (economic, environmental, etc.) an individual is concerned about maximizing automotive fuel economy, they may slow down relative to other traffic, as lower speeds increase automotive fuel economy. | Personal conscience is a powerful force in individual ethical decision making. Thrift and preservation of the environment both reflect powerful ethical impulses, even when they don't reach the level of shared ethics. | While holding personal ethical positions need not entail any level of negotiation, behavior that differs from the norm will frequently require some level of mutual adaptation. Driving slower than traffic is no exception, even when one is simply driving at the speed limit. |
|
Figure 3: Laws, Rules, Precedents, Ethics and Speeding
|
|||
????
This paper originiates in a lecture first given in a class on "Communication Ethics" at Oswego State University of New York (SUNY Oswego) during September, 2001. A precis version of the table was drawn up on a blackboard at that time. The table that is the centerpiece of this article was developed over several over the course of several months with the idea of including it, as table 3, in the January, 2003 paper "Fractally Complex Decision Spaces and the Efficacy of Ethics Instruction", which was first presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Ethics Across the Curriculum. The table is referenced from a September, 2002 lecture in "Communication Ethics" and has since become a commonly accessed page on my web site. This paper has been written, at least in part, to give the table some context.