Speed limits are only arbitrary in the sense that the *exact* limit is arbitrary. It is more fact than value judgement that the speed limit past a school should be closer to 20 mph than to, say 2 mph or 60 mph.
1
The ethicist is just trolling now. A common ethical chestnut that is presented to children is, "Is it moral to steal a loaf of bread to feed your starving family?" Answer: yes. Ergo, dumpster diving is moral. The ethicist said that the supermarket had the right to stop people dumpster diving - but that does not answer the question about if dumpster diving is moral.
It is not ethical to lie by pretending to be a celebrity and sign a photograph of someone who you will thereby make happy. Ethics 101 for grownups: protect people's autonomy and self determination. For example, if they tried to sell the photograph or even if they showed it to friends, they could be humiliated or even accused of fraud.
It is not ethical to lie by pretending to be a celebrity and sign a photograph of someone who you will thereby make happy. Ethics 101 for grownups: protect people's autonomy and self determination. For example, if they tried to sell the photograph or even if they showed it to friends, they could be humiliated or even accused of fraud.
8
Thanks for writing to Chuck Klosterman about dumpster diving. I appreciate your opinion that dumpster diving is moral. I also appreciate your question about whether it's ethically wrong to dumpster dive. I never thought much about the ethics of dumpster diving.
As a food pantry coordinator, I interact with people weekly who dumpster dive to feed themselves, their children, parents, and housemates. We can't explore the ethics of dumpster diving without exploring the ethics of allowing people in our country to go hungry because they can't make enough $$$ to buy food.
People coming to the Reservoir Food Pantry take a 3-day-supply of food home to wherever and whatever that is. The other 4 days they're on their own.
They can buy food if they have a SNAP card, & if they can get to a food store. Without SNAP and transportation, they must get creative or go hungry:
panhandling
Borrowing $$$ from friends, relatives, neighbors
Stealing
and, of course, dumpster diving.
In Woodstock, NY, where I live, a beloved resident, Cassia Berman, dumpster dove for greens (kale, chard, collards). Cassia was on the library board and taught Qigong weekly. She never made much $$$, certainly not enough to buy the organic produce at the Sunflower. Cassia didn't really have any $$$ for healthcare. She felt good nutrition was her best defense against illness.
I was always grateful for Cassia's tenacity. She brought to the whole hunger/food pantry scene.
As a food pantry coordinator, I interact with people weekly who dumpster dive to feed themselves, their children, parents, and housemates. We can't explore the ethics of dumpster diving without exploring the ethics of allowing people in our country to go hungry because they can't make enough $$$ to buy food.
People coming to the Reservoir Food Pantry take a 3-day-supply of food home to wherever and whatever that is. The other 4 days they're on their own.
They can buy food if they have a SNAP card, & if they can get to a food store. Without SNAP and transportation, they must get creative or go hungry:
panhandling
Borrowing $$$ from friends, relatives, neighbors
Stealing
and, of course, dumpster diving.
In Woodstock, NY, where I live, a beloved resident, Cassia Berman, dumpster dove for greens (kale, chard, collards). Cassia was on the library board and taught Qigong weekly. She never made much $$$, certainly not enough to buy the organic produce at the Sunflower. Cassia didn't really have any $$$ for healthcare. She felt good nutrition was her best defense against illness.
I was always grateful for Cassia's tenacity. She brought to the whole hunger/food pantry scene.
6
What is unethical is giving a ticket for going just a few mph over the speed limit, as those few mph do not make any difference in safety. In addition a good driver tells his speed for the sense of how fast he is going, and not from looking at his speedometer every 2 seconds.
The idea of enforcing a speed limit is for reasons of safety and for people willfully disregarding the law, neither of which applies in a cae of a few mph over the limit. So giving a ticket based on a few mph over the limit is for the sole reason of raising money, which is most definitely unethical.
The idea of enforcing a speed limit is for reasons of safety and for people willfully disregarding the law, neither of which applies in a cae of a few mph over the limit. So giving a ticket based on a few mph over the limit is for the sole reason of raising money, which is most definitely unethical.
1
How much is too much over the limit? On a faster road, would you say that giving a ticket for going 66 in a 55 mph zone (20 percent over) would be unethical? In a school zone, where there a children crossing streets, would you insist that a driver exceeding the speed limit by the same amount, say, 24 mph - which is just a few over the limit - in a 20 mph school zone with children should get a pass, but it'd be reasonable to go 11 mph over when you are in a 55 mph zone?
The lower limits indicate a heightened danger to children that the legislator wants to protect against, so why would it be unethical to enforce such a limit more strictly?
The lower limits indicate a heightened danger to children that the legislator wants to protect against, so why would it be unethical to enforce such a limit more strictly?
2
Is forgery an ethical question or a legal one?
In the early 90s, I spent time with erstwhile celebrity Vaughn Meader here in NYC. One afternoon he had no money for smokes, let alone a few shots of Mount Gay; a situation I told him was easy to rectify...
Every secondhand book/record shop had one-dollar copies of his best-selling 1960s album The First Family (the title was a joke back then, playing on the many Kennedys; it is used by news media now as if to describe the presidential brood). I brought Vaughn to a few such stores in the Flat Iron district, and told the manager who this was and offered to have him sign some LPs for a few bucks. Man, did they quiz us! When they were satisfied that the scraggly old hippie was indeed Meader (musicians union card did the trick), he signed some records, which no longer sold for a dollar, and collected a good piece of change for this work. He was delighted but also a tad miffed because he had never thought of this before.
In our culture, the signature of even a washed up celebrity is a commodity. Collectors take fakes very seriously.
https://emcphd.wordpress.com
In the early 90s, I spent time with erstwhile celebrity Vaughn Meader here in NYC. One afternoon he had no money for smokes, let alone a few shots of Mount Gay; a situation I told him was easy to rectify...
Every secondhand book/record shop had one-dollar copies of his best-selling 1960s album The First Family (the title was a joke back then, playing on the many Kennedys; it is used by news media now as if to describe the presidential brood). I brought Vaughn to a few such stores in the Flat Iron district, and told the manager who this was and offered to have him sign some LPs for a few bucks. Man, did they quiz us! When they were satisfied that the scraggly old hippie was indeed Meader (musicians union card did the trick), he signed some records, which no longer sold for a dollar, and collected a good piece of change for this work. He was delighted but also a tad miffed because he had never thought of this before.
In our culture, the signature of even a washed up celebrity is a commodity. Collectors take fakes very seriously.
https://emcphd.wordpress.com
11
The nuances you present in your Need to Speed item are duly noted.
Here is another possible answer: The justice system should not be a revenue-raising device. It brings cynicism and disrespect for the law and to the courts if they are seen in league with the police and the city government to get money. It allows manipulation of the system. Towns -- which pay police salaries -- should not be in a position to say we need more funds, so let's sock it to drivers (who may from out-of-town anyway).
Statistics can readily show if municipalities are going too far in this regard.
Here is another possible answer: The justice system should not be a revenue-raising device. It brings cynicism and disrespect for the law and to the courts if they are seen in league with the police and the city government to get money. It allows manipulation of the system. Towns -- which pay police salaries -- should not be in a position to say we need more funds, so let's sock it to drivers (who may from out-of-town anyway).
Statistics can readily show if municipalities are going too far in this regard.
4
Consideration for the celebrity was a good point, though I'm still skeptical as to our autograph ethics. Although I could forge Stephen King's autograph on my Stephen King books and give them to my daughter -- assuming it's ok with him too -- and my daughter cherishes those autographed copies all her life, her granddaughter may in turn get a few thousand dollars by selling these autographed copies in a couple of generations. Although we find "intangible values" argument appealing, this one may be problematic example. Yours truly, Stephen King, Roger Staubach and JD Salinger.
5
I would care about the authenticity of the autograph on my football. I used to collect autographs when I was a teenager, and if I'd found out one was a forgery (my father worked in a business that allowed him to know someone who knew someone...) I'd have been crushed. It's wrong not only to the celebrity but to the recipient. Don't do it.
15
A fraudulent imposter, illegal, dangerous, potentially disease-fatal dumpster diving, and illegal, dangerous, and reckless driving. Are these character-challenged Americans entitlements or is evolved personal character even a consideration anymore. It seems Integrity, Honesty, Good Taste, Selflessness, Decency, and Responsibility are also rotting in the dumpster.
3
Some dive because 1) they don't have the money for food, and for whatever reason can't get on public assistance and 2) they view discarding perfectly good food as wasteful.
6
Annabelle calm done...holy moly
5
I remember reading an ancient book on driving skills that stated that a speed limit on a road was sometime set statistically by monitoring the actual speeds that motorists traveled that road, the assumption being that most motorists choose a reasonably safe and appropriate speed. I strongly doubt that method is much in use today. Whatever the method used, and it probably takes into account several factors, the determination of a speed limit is hardly arbitrary.
2
I believe the columnist has missed the mark in his answer on dumpster diving.
He is undoubtedly correct that the store has the legal right to prohibit dumpster diving, but unless he wants to go further and claim that every violation of law, no matter how petty or arbitrary, is unethical, then he has failed to provide ethical guidance.
He is undoubtedly correct that the store has the legal right to prohibit dumpster diving, but unless he wants to go further and claim that every violation of law, no matter how petty or arbitrary, is unethical, then he has failed to provide ethical guidance.
5
The columnist is absolutely incorrect about the reasons the stores give. I worked at two large chains. They toss food and other products and forbid dumpster-diving, because they'd rather take a loss than go to the trouble of giving it to charity. Much of this food, many of these flwoers, etc. are still good.
1. You should get in advance the permission of the celebrity and or try again to reach out to the representatives of the celebrity, or his accountant, lawyer, whomever, or return the fan's note stating I am sorry but I am not this celebrity "though I want to be".......Thank you for trying and caring about this fan....
2. "Dive On"......To me its simple, if its in the dumpster it no longer belongs to them, the private property part becomes tricky however, I furnished my first Greenwich Village Apt with stunning furniture pieces from dumpster diving, even when I am in Dept stores today and their is a major sale going on, I will throw myself in a sale's dumpster before the merchandise can be placed on the sales floor, sometimes I am escorted out by security, but nothing ever stops me, if were you I would still Dive On...!!!
3. Your instincts are correct it is unethical and they are trying to raise money, however the law provides them the right to give a ticket, If I were you try to get the law changed, get a new bill passed especially given these are minor infractions, however the road is a dangerous place and a moving vehicle is even more dangerous. Safety and Conscience are Paramount when driving, I am always yelling at NYC cab drivers because they are on their cell phones while driving, these cabbies get away with so much...Create a Bill to change the law but thing of SAFETY FIRST
2. "Dive On"......To me its simple, if its in the dumpster it no longer belongs to them, the private property part becomes tricky however, I furnished my first Greenwich Village Apt with stunning furniture pieces from dumpster diving, even when I am in Dept stores today and their is a major sale going on, I will throw myself in a sale's dumpster before the merchandise can be placed on the sales floor, sometimes I am escorted out by security, but nothing ever stops me, if were you I would still Dive On...!!!
3. Your instincts are correct it is unethical and they are trying to raise money, however the law provides them the right to give a ticket, If I were you try to get the law changed, get a new bill passed especially given these are minor infractions, however the road is a dangerous place and a moving vehicle is even more dangerous. Safety and Conscience are Paramount when driving, I am always yelling at NYC cab drivers because they are on their cell phones while driving, these cabbies get away with so much...Create a Bill to change the law but thing of SAFETY FIRST
1
Maybe I'm getting old, but can people stop saying "reach out to" already, unless they are doing more than merely contacting someone?
1
Re.: Speeding tickets and related alleged "safety measures": if they were enforced on a regular basis and if they were effectively punished I would agree with the ethicist but the new technology of cameras that take the picture of a license plate and ascribe a speed or a red light infraction with a claim of infallibility makes it clear that such "tickets" are issued not for safety reasons but to collect money.
When an auto hits a pedestrian and speed is involved police often work hard to excuse the driver and blame the pedestrian. We see it time and time again in NYC the same happens when a bicycle hits a pedestrian. What was the victim doing to excuse the cyclist or the driver. It's always the same. The pedestrian is expendable.
When an auto hits a pedestrian and speed is involved police often work hard to excuse the driver and blame the pedestrian. We see it time and time again in NYC the same happens when a bicycle hits a pedestrian. What was the victim doing to excuse the cyclist or the driver. It's always the same. The pedestrian is expendable.
2
The Ethicist blew it on his answer to all 3 questions. Forging someone else's signature is not like claiming there is a Santa Claus to a little girl, it's outright fraud and lying. Would the Ethicist also support hiring a celebrity look a like to pass off as the real thing if a fan really wanted to meet him? Or a piece of glass as a real diamond if he knew the fiancée would never check its authenticity?
The issue regarding dumpster diving was not if it was legal but ethical. I do not see how taking something that is intended for the trash heap hurts anybody. Most dumpsters are behind supermarkets where no customers go. As long as the divers don't make a mess, no one gets hurt but someone benefits.
As for speeding tickets, the truth is the vast majority are issued not for true safety reasons but to raise money. Leaving aside the special issue of school zones when school is in session, many roads are quite safely driven at much faster than posted speed.
As for speed traps: http://www.recordonline.com/article/20030727/News/307279999?template=pri...
The issue regarding dumpster diving was not if it was legal but ethical. I do not see how taking something that is intended for the trash heap hurts anybody. Most dumpsters are behind supermarkets where no customers go. As long as the divers don't make a mess, no one gets hurt but someone benefits.
As for speeding tickets, the truth is the vast majority are issued not for true safety reasons but to raise money. Leaving aside the special issue of school zones when school is in session, many roads are quite safely driven at much faster than posted speed.
As for speed traps: http://www.recordonline.com/article/20030727/News/307279999?template=pri...
5
Fines are a voluntary tax. Sure, cities need the money, but no one needs to pay. If you can't afford to get a ticket, then obey the rules. Easy.
4
Speed limits might not necessarily be entirely reasonable but to state that they're "arbitrary" is ridiculous. There's a good reason that we aren't allowed to drive at 75 mph on residential streets or 25 mph on the freeway. They purpose of the fine is more difficult to discern and in some instances one reasonably suspect that it serves mainly to raise revenue.
1
One of the root causes of the Furgeuson riots was these "uncomplicated" financial penalties. If you don't pay it, eventually an arrest warrant is issued. Many poor people have chaotic lives with frequent unemployment, low wages, no checking account, frequent address changes etc. so they can't or don't pay these fines. The police department is charged with arresting (including strip search and temporary incarceration) these people for what were originally minor violations. This creates tremendous resentment. The solution it to allow any penalty to be worked off through time served, community service, education etc. For many people $100 is a full month's "net income" (wages minus absolutely essential expenses). We have huge wealth disparities but on free time, we are much more equal.
29
You've said everything I expected to say, except that a fine for speeding may not decrease the probability of reoccurrence? Stated a slightly different way, do fines for speeding and other moving traffic violations (including fines and prison sentences for DUI, DWI, DWS, etc. prevent recidivism?
I firmly believe, and there is significant evidence to support my conclusion, that traffic fines imposed, along with seizures and forfeitures of autos, are directly proportional to providing revenue support for the hydra-headed "criminal justice infrastructure", which includes everything from the prosecutors to the police to the jail custody wardens, in addition to revenues appropriated by State Legislatures.
Someone joined with the criminal justice system runs the risk of having a list of conditions placed upon them that will haunt them in later life if each condition, and there are many, is not scrupulously met and reported. There is a strong argument to be made, viewed from the eyes of an economist, that each defendant in such a case represents a stream of revenue for years or a lifetime if one of these conditions are not met.
This may seem far afield from the simple question of whether a fine or some alternative is a better penalty. But, at its core the question is important because it raises fundamental issues of fairness, especially for the poor and just ways to prevent reoccurring traffic offenses or raising revenues to support judges, police, and prosecutors.
I firmly believe, and there is significant evidence to support my conclusion, that traffic fines imposed, along with seizures and forfeitures of autos, are directly proportional to providing revenue support for the hydra-headed "criminal justice infrastructure", which includes everything from the prosecutors to the police to the jail custody wardens, in addition to revenues appropriated by State Legislatures.
Someone joined with the criminal justice system runs the risk of having a list of conditions placed upon them that will haunt them in later life if each condition, and there are many, is not scrupulously met and reported. There is a strong argument to be made, viewed from the eyes of an economist, that each defendant in such a case represents a stream of revenue for years or a lifetime if one of these conditions are not met.
This may seem far afield from the simple question of whether a fine or some alternative is a better penalty. But, at its core the question is important because it raises fundamental issues of fairness, especially for the poor and just ways to prevent reoccurring traffic offenses or raising revenues to support judges, police, and prosecutors.
So if the celebrity had passed away, then the "intangible value" of a positive feeling induced by falsehood justifies the deception.
Really?
If our radius of trust can be eroded this easily, what's the point of ethics?
Why bother?
Really?
If our radius of trust can be eroded this easily, what's the point of ethics?
Why bother?
16
You may not care, Mr. Klosterman, whether your Roger Staubach signature is real or not, but that alone is insufficient to conclude that it is OK to forge such signatures on the assumption that other signature holders have the same sensibilities as you. Is this egocentric inference really a cogent argument in favor of falsely leading someone to think they own a valuable signature?
33
I'd bet the house that Roger Staubach would disapprove of such shenanigans.
Did you even read the second paragraph of the answer?
The second paragraph is a separate argument from the first, despite the fact that it tends to negate it. If the celebrity was dead or was otherwise known not to care and there was no impact on him or her, forging the signature would be still be wrong.
1
It'd be better for the first advice-seeker to return the photo with a note saying he shares the celebrity's name.
56
Re question 3: I am sharply reminded of the deplorable situation in places like Ferguson, MO, where seemingly minor fines can quickly end up putting poverty-stricken people in prison. That does not seem to be the case with the questioner's friend, but if his question is being answered from a societal and policy-oriented perspective I don't see how it can ethically be avoided.
17
I'm surprised by the claim, "Speed limits are arbitrary..." I expected they were subject to state and federal standards, suich as those set for building construction and thousands of other codes. Indeed, when I typed into Google, "How do governments set speed limits?" I received over 56 million hits. I'll trust the Wikipedia response on this one, which says, in part:
"The US federal government has a… law—49 CFR 392.14—which applies in all states as permitted under by the commerce clause and due process clause.; for example California Vehicle Code section 22350 which states that "No person shall drive a vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable ... and in no event at a speed which endangers the safety of persons or property".
"The basic speed law is almost always supplemented by specific maximum or minimum limits, but applies regardless. The reasonable speed may be different than the posted speed limit in conditions such as fog, heavy rain, ice, snow, gravel, sharp corners, blinding glare, darkness, crossing traffic, or when there is an obstructed view of orthogonal traffic—such as by road curvature, parked cars, vegetation, or snow banks—thus limiting the Assured Clear Distance Ahead (ACDA). Basic speed laws are statutized reinforcements of the centuries-old common law negligence doctrine as specifically applied to vehicular speed.
I suspect the claim that speed limits are "arbitrary" is factually incorrect.
Sincerely,
Marc Grobman
"The US federal government has a… law—49 CFR 392.14—which applies in all states as permitted under by the commerce clause and due process clause.; for example California Vehicle Code section 22350 which states that "No person shall drive a vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable ... and in no event at a speed which endangers the safety of persons or property".
"The basic speed law is almost always supplemented by specific maximum or minimum limits, but applies regardless. The reasonable speed may be different than the posted speed limit in conditions such as fog, heavy rain, ice, snow, gravel, sharp corners, blinding glare, darkness, crossing traffic, or when there is an obstructed view of orthogonal traffic—such as by road curvature, parked cars, vegetation, or snow banks—thus limiting the Assured Clear Distance Ahead (ACDA). Basic speed laws are statutized reinforcements of the centuries-old common law negligence doctrine as specifically applied to vehicular speed.
I suspect the claim that speed limits are "arbitrary" is factually incorrect.
Sincerely,
Marc Grobman
16
"I don’t see the problem, unless the authorities are setting up speed traps..."
What's wrong with speed traps? Whenever I go by a line of cars that have been pulled over for speeding, I appreciate the fact that those drivers might be less likely to break traffic laws in the future. That makes the road safer for me and everybody else.
If you oppose speed traps, then I suppose you also oppose sobriety checks as well. Again, I'm happy to have those people stopped.
The alternative to speed traps is what? How would a police office in a marked car find a speeder? You've certainly seen how traffic always slows down when drivers see a cop car ahead. And *nobody* passes a police car on a freeway. There's really not much other way to find and deter speeders.
What's wrong with speed traps? Whenever I go by a line of cars that have been pulled over for speeding, I appreciate the fact that those drivers might be less likely to break traffic laws in the future. That makes the road safer for me and everybody else.
If you oppose speed traps, then I suppose you also oppose sobriety checks as well. Again, I'm happy to have those people stopped.
The alternative to speed traps is what? How would a police office in a marked car find a speeder? You've certainly seen how traffic always slows down when drivers see a cop car ahead. And *nobody* passes a police car on a freeway. There's really not much other way to find and deter speeders.
7
You obviously have no concept of what a "speed trap" is. It is a place where the speed limit is much lower than the previous limit and is poorly marked and difficult to attain without unsafe breaking. It is not a way to find evil speeders and it has nothing to do with sobriety checks.
4
In my view sobriety checkpoints are much worse than speed traps.
While a speed trap, by its generally accepted definition, is a system to trap motorists who are exceeding artificially low speed limits as a revenue collection device, the motorist can still avoid being stopped by observing the posted speed limit.
A sobriety check, on the other hand, subjects people who have done nothing wrong, and given the police no reason to think they have violated to the law, to temporary police custody just to give the police the chance to look for evidence of law breaking. Case law has permitted these checks, but I do not agree that suspicionless detention is legitimate just because it might prevent or apprehend some small number of violators.
While a speed trap, by its generally accepted definition, is a system to trap motorists who are exceeding artificially low speed limits as a revenue collection device, the motorist can still avoid being stopped by observing the posted speed limit.
A sobriety check, on the other hand, subjects people who have done nothing wrong, and given the police no reason to think they have violated to the law, to temporary police custody just to give the police the chance to look for evidence of law breaking. Case law has permitted these checks, but I do not agree that suspicionless detention is legitimate just because it might prevent or apprehend some small number of violators.
5
The fallacy in your post is the assumption that all traffic laws, especially speed limits, inherently make roads safer. The Ethicist is right that many times speed limits are not rationally based. A speed trap is NOT there for safety but, by definition, is often accompanied by some chicanery and is there to raise funds for the municipality or state, often using trickery such as an arbitrary change in the speed (lower, of course) and immediate enforcement for a "gotcha" approach. Sorry, that's wrong.
The same for sobriety check points. Yes, some - generally a few - drunk drivers are arrested but at an absurd manpower cost ratio per arrest and at the expense of stopping far, far more law abiding citizens without having committed any infractions whatsoever. You're "happy to have THOSE PEOPLE [emphasis added] stopped" but apparently don't care that law abiding citizens are the majority stopped. The percent of drunk driver arrests at these check points reveals, in fact, that they are often for show more than actually making the roads any safer. We do not live in a police state (yet). By the way, people do in fact pass police cars because they pay so little attention to their driving!
The same for sobriety check points. Yes, some - generally a few - drunk drivers are arrested but at an absurd manpower cost ratio per arrest and at the expense of stopping far, far more law abiding citizens without having committed any infractions whatsoever. You're "happy to have THOSE PEOPLE [emphasis added] stopped" but apparently don't care that law abiding citizens are the majority stopped. The percent of drunk driver arrests at these check points reveals, in fact, that they are often for show more than actually making the roads any safer. We do not live in a police state (yet). By the way, people do in fact pass police cars because they pay so little attention to their driving!
Re the D-List Doppelganger: Terrible advice. The situation is not at all analogous to the issue of allowing children to believe in Santa Claus. That little deception arises within a particular socio-cultural context that includes a set of practices none of which arise in this situation (the most important perhaps being that the deception will eventually be disclosed). The fan is not a child. To sign the photo and thank the fan for his/her support is to take advantage of his/her credulity, a deception which will (likely) never be seen for what it is. The answer reeks of some sort of pseudo-paternalism: this doesn't really hurt the fan, it's actually quite good for the person, ergo no problem. As I said, terrible advice.
The correct (i.e. ethical) response is for the Doppelganger to let the fan know that he/she is not the person the fan thinks he/she is. The fan will probably get a little laugh out of it, and then perhaps determine for him/herself whether it's actually impossible to locate the celebrity.
The correct (i.e. ethical) response is for the Doppelganger to let the fan know that he/she is not the person the fan thinks he/she is. The fan will probably get a little laugh out of it, and then perhaps determine for him/herself whether it's actually impossible to locate the celebrity.
21
This advice on the false autograph is horrible. It's wrong on several lines of thought. Chuk's insight as to the value of his football, regardless of the validlity of the autorgaph, is very telling and to the point. But Chuck's personal insight does not a universal ethics make. Deceit however is almost always wrong. Chuck is using one example of 'Santa Clause' to say that Deceit is not really a universal type of value. In otherwords, just because there are exceptions to a rule, does not mean the rule is wrong. 'Santa Clause deceit' is a limited cultrual character for young people to 'believe' in when they are young and not an argument to be applied to decieving adults. The harm is to society, where lying becomes acceptable. Don't patronize people by trying to 'play Santa to them'
18
Regarding the use of traffic fines as a municipal tax, this is a particular problem in St Louis, as evidenced by the article below.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/19/us/missouri-sues-13-st-louis-suburbs-o...
Regarding ticketing for speeding in a school zone, I think it's a good thing, leading to improved safety. As long as the tickets are given out during the times the students are actually walking to school. If the ticket is issued, say, at 9:15, when the kids are already in class, then it begins to look a lot more like a tax.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/19/us/missouri-sues-13-st-louis-suburbs-o...
Regarding ticketing for speeding in a school zone, I think it's a good thing, leading to improved safety. As long as the tickets are given out during the times the students are actually walking to school. If the ticket is issued, say, at 9:15, when the kids are already in class, then it begins to look a lot more like a tax.
10
"As long as the tickets are given out during the times the students are actually walking to school. If the ticket is issued, say, at 9:15, when the kids are already in class, then it begins to look a lot more like a tax."
The child traffic in and around schools doesn't adhere to first and last bell. It's constant. The Grade 4s are going to the museum. Sally's being dropped off and Johnny's being collected halfway through the morning for medical appointments. Parents are coming and going to volunteer in their kids' classes, often with younger kids in tow. The Grade 7s are crossing the street to have lunch at Tim Horton's. There are before and after school programs.
Traffic engineers take all of this into account when designing streets and posting speed and other traffic restrictions. Unfortunately, the design of many school zones make them attractive alternative routes during off-peak hours, so it's especially important to enforce the regulations when people are most tempted to think they shouldn't apply.
The child traffic in and around schools doesn't adhere to first and last bell. It's constant. The Grade 4s are going to the museum. Sally's being dropped off and Johnny's being collected halfway through the morning for medical appointments. Parents are coming and going to volunteer in their kids' classes, often with younger kids in tow. The Grade 7s are crossing the street to have lunch at Tim Horton's. There are before and after school programs.
Traffic engineers take all of this into account when designing streets and posting speed and other traffic restrictions. Unfortunately, the design of many school zones make them attractive alternative routes during off-peak hours, so it's especially important to enforce the regulations when people are most tempted to think they shouldn't apply.
3
Doppelganger: Lying is wrong. Sometimes the alternatives are worse ("Where's this guy I want to kill?" "Sorry, I don't know").
But in general it's wrong, and you shouldn't deceive this guy who wants somebody's authentic autograph.
Fines: It would be good if you fined people by their ability to pay since two hundred dollars is trivial to millionaires and survival for the poor. But it's hard to implement precisely.
Dumpster-diving: What kind of a society are we, where people are starving and need to rummage through garbage in order to eat?
But in general it's wrong, and you shouldn't deceive this guy who wants somebody's authentic autograph.
Fines: It would be good if you fined people by their ability to pay since two hundred dollars is trivial to millionaires and survival for the poor. But it's hard to implement precisely.
Dumpster-diving: What kind of a society are we, where people are starving and need to rummage through garbage in order to eat?
18
Regarding the issue of fines being of unequal impact on those who must pay, the practice of "day fines" (related to the income of the individual) exists - or at least it did some years ago - in other countries. In Alaska the legislature authorized the court system to adopt a day fine system, but it was never implemented and the statute was repealed. In regard to a homeowner's right to privacy in his trash, it may exist in regard to trespass, but I believe it does not apply when the trash is on the public thoroughfare (e.g. out for the garbage truck) unless there is a specific ordinance protecting it from scavengers. There have been interesting supreme court cases about trash, abandoned property, and the right to privacy. I'm not up on recent law, however.
7
Dumpsters don't typically get put out in public thoroughfares, garbage trucks usually go to them
4
In Montgomery County Maryland people have been charged for picking Trash and recycling put out for collection in a sting operation."http://www.wjla.com/articles/2013/10/furloughed-worker-fined-for-scrap-m..."
At $100 a pop $9200 in fines.
Montgomery county, where your trash is their treasure, so keep your mitts off it.
At $100 a pop $9200 in fines.
Montgomery county, where your trash is their treasure, so keep your mitts off it.
3
In New York City, it's illegal to remove items placed out for recycling, as NYC expects to earn money from their sale to recycling companies. However, items placed out on the public streets as garbage has no such restrictions—which is why credit card statements, etc., are best shredded so they don't fall into the wrong hands.
I routinely see people going through the garbage in front of local food and thrift stores, which has been discarded. I believe it's legal here.
I routinely see people going through the garbage in front of local food and thrift stores, which has been discarded. I believe it's legal here.
"In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law, as would the rabid segregationist. That would lead to anarchy. One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law." Martin Luther King Jr.
In other words, if you feel the law is unjust you may reject its morality by breaking it, but if you try to evade punishment, you're rejecting the legitimacy of the society that created that law.
In other words, if you feel the law is unjust you may reject its morality by breaking it, but if you try to evade punishment, you're rejecting the legitimacy of the society that created that law.
31
Re Doppelganger: My father shared a name with and a passing resemblance to a successful NBA coach in the city I moved to as a young adult. When dad came to visit, I'd book his hotel, and invariably the booking clerk would ask, "You mean, THE ....?" and I'd always say, "That's right, he's my dad." Dad always got upgrades, which he accepted, and requests for autographs, which he declined. Once he was asked for his autograph in the hotel bar where the other guy was on multiple TVs at a game being broadcast live from the other side of the country.
Being mistaken for a celebrity has its downside: I was once mistaken for a famous actress while holidaying at a small resort with my young daughter. I couldn't understand why people were so standoffish - body odour? halitosis? something I said? - until someone explained that they were all trying to give me space.
Being mistaken for a celebrity has its downside: I was once mistaken for a famous actress while holidaying at a small resort with my young daughter. I couldn't understand why people were so standoffish - body odour? halitosis? something I said? - until someone explained that they were all trying to give me space.
9
The problem with monetary punishment is that it is not the same for everyone. For some, $100 represents more than a day's pay. For others it is pocket change. The punishment for violating the law should have the same "meaning" for everyone. How big would a fine have to be, to be meaningful to a billionaire?
42
I know that was a rhetorical question, but the answer is that LOTS of people do LOTS of illegal things because they know that whatever penalty they have to pay is chump change and easily worth the risk which, because of connections, they may not have to pay at all. It doesn't matter the reason for the law. or who might be hurt from the breaking of it, or what a bad example it sets for other people, namely, their own children.
8
I cannot imagine any penalty having universal "meaning". A penalty of one finger from the left land left means less to the right-handed thief. Being fined two shoes is nothing to the Manolomanic and surely something to the double-amputee. A year in prison is one thing to an 18 year old, quite another to the 81 year old. Perhaps a $100 fine for all is about as great an equalizer as we get.
As for the fake autograph, there may be such things as charitable lies, but every lie is still a lie. If I gave my beloved a rhinestone touting it as DeBeers finest, no one would ever consider my deceitt an act of charity.
As for the fake autograph, there may be such things as charitable lies, but every lie is still a lie. If I gave my beloved a rhinestone touting it as DeBeers finest, no one would ever consider my deceitt an act of charity.
4
There are countries where the monetary amount of a fine depends on the income of the perpetrator. A $200 000 speeding ticket is not unheard of.
6
speed limits are not always arbitrary, most times they are set based upon design principles such as traffic levels, pedestrian density, road design, sightlines, etc. Part of living in an organized society.
53
I have heard of celebrities who sign an autograph in the name of a person for whom they are mistaken, but I don't think it's ethical for you to do. That is a fan mistaking one person for another and I'm sure the autographing errors work both ways. I really doubt that your D-list celebrity has a valuable signature, but the error was about your name only, not a mistake in the fan's meeting you. If you sign this one autograph, you may get a slew of other requests from other die hard fans. Just let this one know you have the wrong person and let the fan's hunt continue.
Concerning dumpster diving- Aside from the trespassing issue, there is also the problem of dangerous food. Supermarkets donate edible, but near expiration date food to the local pantries and soup kitchens. If it ends up in the dumpster it may not be safe to eat. This is so especially if it sits in a hot dumpster for any length of time. Would you sue the supermarket if you got sick from eating their garbage?
It is so easy to not get a speeding ticket; just obey the black and white signs along the roadway. It is true that collecting fines is the cheapest way to exact punishment, instead of trying to run a program for offenders. However, you could argue that a $50 fine exacts a greater toll on a poor person that on a business man. Maybe the fines should be based on your income.
Concerning dumpster diving- Aside from the trespassing issue, there is also the problem of dangerous food. Supermarkets donate edible, but near expiration date food to the local pantries and soup kitchens. If it ends up in the dumpster it may not be safe to eat. This is so especially if it sits in a hot dumpster for any length of time. Would you sue the supermarket if you got sick from eating their garbage?
It is so easy to not get a speeding ticket; just obey the black and white signs along the roadway. It is true that collecting fines is the cheapest way to exact punishment, instead of trying to run a program for offenders. However, you could argue that a $50 fine exacts a greater toll on a poor person that on a business man. Maybe the fines should be based on your income.
23