Topic: Is accelerationism ever a valid argument? (Read 142 times)
#1 I would try to prevent an accident and later explain to the old man that his reaction time has increased and driving a car can be dangerous for him and others. As an option, you can offer him to use a taxi or drive him free of charge 1-2 times a week on his business.
I'd ask myself: what am I doing in a car with this man that I know to be a reckless driver?
Given a choice I wouldn't go with him, but if they forced me to do it, I'd try to save him from crashing because who knows what will happen. Maybe he gets stuck and the car catches fire and I'll have to watch him burn... You never know what consequences your actions will bring so it's best to go with your gut and ethics. This way whatever happens you'll be able to justify your actions.
Given a choice I wouldn't go with him, but if they forced me to do it, I'd try to save him from crashing because who knows what will happen. Maybe he gets stuck and the car catches fire and I'll have to watch him burn... You never know what consequences your actions will bring so it's best to go with your gut and ethics. This way whatever happens you'll be able to justify your actions.
Well, it's a small bridge after a turn in a neighborhood, so the car will be going like 20 mph. There will be damage to the car, and the bad driver will deservedly lose driving priviledges but the only damage will be to property. Should have been clearer in the OP.
I see this action, letting the accident happen, as the most ethical one.
It reminds me of that good old debate about the necessity of stopping drunk or reckless drivers. There are people who believe that if you see someone zigzagging and you're sure he's DUI, you should somehow cut him off and make him stop so that he doesn't get into an accident, but while doing so you may be the cause of his accident.
I've always found this too risky and thought that the best approach is to call the cops, give them his plates and wereabouts and let them handle it. I wouldn't endanger myself and my car just to stop him.
#2 is morally preferable.
You have rights in a society, but you also have responsibilities - not least to ensure you don't endanger the well-being of your fellow citizens.
If the old man is unwilling to accept his responsibilities, then he should forfeit the rights associated with them.
Not sure on the wider point about accelerationism though. A 'move fast and break things' attitude can cause huge problems when applied to a society.
You have rights in a society, but you also have responsibilities - not least to ensure you don't endanger the well-being of your fellow citizens.
If the old man is unwilling to accept his responsibilities, then he should forfeit the rights associated with them.
Not sure on the wider point about accelerationism though. A 'move fast and break things' attitude can cause huge problems when applied to a society.
I'd ask myself: what am I doing in a car with this man that I know to be a reckless driver?
Given a choice I wouldn't go with him, but if they forced me to do it, I'd try to save him from crashing because who knows what will happen. Maybe he gets stuck and the car catches fire and I'll have to watch him burn... You never know what consequences your actions will bring so it's best to go with your gut and ethics. This way whatever happens you'll be able to justify your actions.
Given a choice I wouldn't go with him, but if they forced me to do it, I'd try to save him from crashing because who knows what will happen. Maybe he gets stuck and the car catches fire and I'll have to watch him burn... You never know what consequences your actions will bring so it's best to go with your gut and ethics. This way whatever happens you'll be able to justify your actions.
Well, it's a small bridge after a turn in a neighborhood, so the car will be going like 20 mph. There will be damage to the car, and the bad driver will deservedly lose driving priviledges but the only damage will be to property. Should have been clearer in the OP.
I see this action, letting the accident happen, as the most ethical one.
I definitely go with #1.
Doing so might upset him because it removed some direct freedom from him, but it might, also, help him realize that he needs help.
In addition, I would explain it to him.
Doing so might upset him because it removed some direct freedom from him, but it might, also, help him realize that he needs help.
In addition, I would explain it to him.
I'd ask myself: what am I doing in a car with this man that I know to be a reckless driver?
Given a choice I wouldn't go with him, but if they forced me to do it, I'd try to save him from crashing because who knows what will happen. Maybe he gets stuck and the car catches fire and I'll have to watch him burn... You never know what consequences your actions will bring so it's best to go with your gut and ethics. This way whatever happens you'll be able to justify your actions.
Given a choice I wouldn't go with him, but if they forced me to do it, I'd try to save him from crashing because who knows what will happen. Maybe he gets stuck and the car catches fire and I'll have to watch him burn... You never know what consequences your actions will bring so it's best to go with your gut and ethics. This way whatever happens you'll be able to justify your actions.
Accelerationism is a dangerous concept that can have many unintended consequences. It is often a concept radicals like to use to justify violence and other forms of destructive behavior. IMO if the concept is ever valid at all, its application should be extremely limited.
I think i would go for 1, not because he would keep driving but because i also want to keep myself safe.
You said slow, but you also said bridge, i don't think i would want to risk it...
If proper regular tests were in place, he would have lost the license. Ah well. As time passes, with autonomous driving, i predict the max age for driving cars will start going down regardless. No excuse to risk others when the car can now drive itself.
You said slow, but you also said bridge, i don't think i would want to risk it...
If proper regular tests were in place, he would have lost the license. Ah well. As time passes, with autonomous driving, i predict the max age for driving cars will start going down regardless. No excuse to risk others when the car can now drive itself.
I'll give you an example:
You're in the car with an old man. He shouldn't have driving priviledges because he is a terrible driver. He has been in ridiculous accidents before, endangering others but he still has his licence.
You're driving slowly over a small bridge, when he fumbles looking for his sunglasses. He will obviously crash the car on the side of the bridge, at small speed and very small potential damages, but this will result in him losing his licence.
You are in the front passenger seat, you have plenty of time to react. You have 2 options.
1. Grab the wheel, prevent the small accident:
Consequences: Dangerous old man, with driving priviledges keeps driving.
2. Let it happen.
Consequences, the old man loses his driving priviledge, potentially saving lives in the process. There is a car accident that will cost some amount of money, that money is covered by insurance.
Personally I'd go with 2 every time.
Thoughts?
edit: syntax error
You're in the car with an old man. He shouldn't have driving priviledges because he is a terrible driver. He has been in ridiculous accidents before, endangering others but he still has his licence.
You're driving slowly over a small bridge, when he fumbles looking for his sunglasses. He will obviously crash the car on the side of the bridge, at small speed and very small potential damages, but this will result in him losing his licence.
You are in the front passenger seat, you have plenty of time to react. You have 2 options.
1. Grab the wheel, prevent the small accident:
Consequences: Dangerous old man, with driving priviledges keeps driving.
2. Let it happen.
Consequences, the old man loses his driving priviledge, potentially saving lives in the process. There is a car accident that will cost some amount of money, that money is covered by insurance.
Personally I'd go with 2 every time.
Thoughts?
edit: syntax error
Jump to: