Entry #4: Using an immoral to eliminate a immoral
People often think DUIs are sinful, chaotic in nature, and foul play. However, what if I told you that wasn’t always the case? If perhaps it was a better alternative than not?
What if the argument was made that drinking and driving could be ethical? The argument would sound ridiculous, and nobody would listen. Something so immoral couldn’t possibly have any use to anyone involved. Unless it did hold some use, more than what the average person could think of.
How immoral is something if you can use it to stop something more evil? Take Joseph Stalin, for example. Stalin wanted to spread communism throughout Europe and divide Germany after World War 2 so that it could not threaten Europe again. Stalin did many immoral things considered worse than a DUI, which brings us back to the previous question of what if drinking and driving could be ethical.
Drinking and driving is considered sinful, and killing a person while drinking and driving is horrible, but what if the person that was killed was Joseph Stalin? On one hand, you are still considered a horrible person for getting yourself drunk and killing a man, but on the other hand, you killed Joseph Stalin, a man who killed millions and established the GULAG system.
DUIs are often thought of as immoral, but how immoral is it when it could erase something more immoral than itself? What if the action of ending sinful and immoral actions were as simple as drinking and getting behind a wheel?
The thought process of this is important as it makes people think about what they consider immoral and what they consider not. Is something as simple as an immoral wiping out another immoral moral? Eliminating a devious person who has taken many lives by simply getting yourself drunk and getting behind a wheel. Would it still be consider immoral or would you be hailed a hero?
I see what you are trying to convey. But at the same time how many innocent people would get hurt or killed in the process of this. How many people would this happen to until it just so happened to be someone immoral. When you look at it when you get behind the wheel of a car you should be of clear conscience. Even without drinking or something intoxicating this could still happen and put others in danger.
ReplyDeleteI see your argument and point of view and I can understand where you're coming from. 2 negatives don't make a positive and I think drinking and driving compared to Joseph Stalin are completely different scenarios that you can't compare. Overall, I liked that you thought outside the box with this blog.
ReplyDeleteWow, you are raising a really interesting ethical dilemma, asking whether an action that is universally considered immoral. Exploring what makes an action truly immoral, and whether a lesser evil could justify a greater good, is something I think is still unanswered
ReplyDeleteIt was very interesting to read this.
-Pamela Castro
If you aren't making making the conscious choice to kill Stalin then no you can't be absolved of this immoral action. You never set out with the best intentions, you didn't attempt to logically move yourself to the place you believe you are doing the most good, and you only chose to get drunk. So no these don't cancel each other out. If someone had made the choice and explained why then maybe I could absolve them, but like this your just a drunk driver.
ReplyDelete