Yes, you can legislate morality
The cell phone use while driving fracas in the General Assembly just won't go away. We knew this would be a session light on substance and the attention focused on such legislation seems to confirm that. These laws are hanging on despite research that shows other distractions are equally or more likely to cause accidents according to AAA. But there are some interesting aspects to the argument not simply related to cell phone use in vehicles...
In the Sun article (link above) Senator Nancy Jacobs, a Republican who represents Cecil and Harford counties is quoted as saying "It's legislating common sense," "People should be responsible adults and know how to behave and act reasonably. Next we're going to be telling people what radio station they can listen to and how loud they can listen to it."
I think we can all anecdotally agree that "common sense isn't so common". For instance, all I had to do during my morning commute was take a look at the number of cars weaving, not staying in lanes and cutting me off. These drivers were using cell phones. On any given trip in a car this happens repeatedly.
So from this little example (not to mention what we see in the news headlines everyday) it appears that we are not responsible or reasonable on our own. In our selfish culture we lack the morality and/or ethics to determine that using a cell phone while driving is unsafe and endangers others. The reasons for the moral decline are numerous but for one we are less religious. Religion has always been and will be a source of moral guidance for some. But without such guidance, we need paternalistic laws to tell us how to behave. The fact that there is a law forces us to comply with what otherwise should be determined by reason or common sense mainly because we fear a financial penalty/fine. Read more on a good discussion on the distinction between ethics, morals and laws.
As our culture's moral and ethical foundation crumbles and individuals are unwilling and unable to consider their obligations to others, more and more laws that regulate behavior will continue to be brought up in the State House. I don't see much of an end in sight... we'll continue to use the Legislative Session to create laws regulating behavior unless the majority of people in our State and culture begin to consider other's interests and not just their own. So yes, you can legislate morality and unfortunately, we need to.
Labels: 2008 session cellphones

4 Comments:
WRONG Wrong wrong... we do not need laws specific to legislate morality. We need to enforce existing laws. In the case of cell phones and driving... there are laws on the books already that could be applied if a person caused an accident by not paying enough attention to their driving by using their phone, eating their sandwich, applying their makeup, disciplining their children, changing their CD player, etc. Any of these things could be considered "Negligent Driving" depending on the circumstances.
Hopefully one day we will get a legislature that addresses the REAL problems we are facing in this state like our current budget BLOAT .
Yes I have heard of the Negligent Driving law. As you note its not enforced and could be, but we would all like to know why it isn't enforced. I've emailed Greg Shipley at the Maryland State Police for an explanation on the Negligent Driving law and the lack of enforcement and will let you know if I get a response. Thanks for the comment.
Morality is "do unto others as you would have them do unto you". Just as simple as that.
And yes it does apply to when you are hurtling down the road at a hundred feet a second in a 3000 pound vehicle, your attention should be on driving, not jabbering with someone, especially with a cellphone jammed between your ear and your shoulder.
And "do unto others........." applies to so many other things in life as well.
Steve - you have clearly missed the point. I have two problems with the proposed legislation...
1 - It is specific to cell phones and there are a host of other distractions in the car... do we create laws for each one? that would be incredibly stupid in my opinion.
2 - We already have laws on the books that cover negligence, which is what this is. If someone is driving down the road and becomes distracted by [insert distraction here - cellphone, coffee, makeup, cigarette, ipod, child, etc.] and causes an accident or runs someone over, then they have behaved negligently and appropriate laws are already on the books to handle that.
As far as morality goes, you could probably apply it to every situation with your broad definition... and rightly so, it is probably the basis of most laws... but I think in this case that Safety is the more essential driver of the legislation, not morality, as the author of the article tried to bend it to.
Post a Comment
<< Home