A moral debate about driving

Sign up Subscribe Join our community of Dell Technologies blog readers and never miss another post by subscribing to our email newsletter. Fill out the brief form below and you will get a confirmation e-mail for your subscription. Thank You Almost finished We need to confirm your email address.

A moral debate about driving

Having just returned from Rio, one can only agree. One of us was staying with an eminent professor of philosophy. We were returning to her house with her 11 year old daughter, only to have our way blocked by police with machine guns.

They were hunting a drug lord in the local favela — this road was the only escape route and they were preparing for possible altercation. Cardoso highlights the practical failure of a zero-tolerance approach.

A zero tolerance approach to a crime like taking drugs must always fail, in the same way as a zero-tolerance approach to alcohol, prostitution or drugs in sport will always fail. Paradoxically, the worst thing you could do to the drug lords in Rio is not to wage a war on them, but to decriminalise cocaine and marijuana.

They would be out of business in one day. Supplies could be monitored, controlled and regulated — the harm to users and third parties significantly reduced. The argument is nearly always put forward in terms of the burdens that the drug war has imposed on us in terms of crime and public health.

Self-driving cars don't care about your moral dilemmas | Technology | The Guardian

But we so rarely hear a moral argument in favour of liberalizing drug laws. This is a mistake.

Although experts have told us time and time again that things would be better without the drug war, politicians have ignored the expert advice because voters do not want drugs laws to be loosened.

And voters feel this way not because they think they know better than the experts, but because they have moral objections to drug use. There is a hidden moral debate driving the war on drugs that we never seem to bring out in the open.

The original drug prohibitions had a moral rationale rather than a practical one. It began with the American prohibition of opium, which was primarily motivated by a moral objection to white people smoking in Chinese-run opium dens. This began a prohibition movement in the United States.

Inmarijuana —which was used almost exclusively by Mexican and Indian immigrants — was prohibited for the first time by the state of California. The drug does not have to be harmful in any other sense. According to US government statistics, paracetamol acetaminophen is involved in nearly five times as many emergency room visits as MDMA, and it remains available in supermarkets around the world.

Suspend for a moment the true belief that alcohol and caffeine are addictive. Addiction does harm the addict, to be sure. But self-harm cannot provide grounds for prohibiting a substance. It is sometimes argued by liberal-minded people that addictions warrant state interference because they render the addict incompetent, powerless to make an autonomous decision to take drugs.

The addict becomes like a child in need of parental protection — or in this case the protection of the state. It is a condition that robs us of our moral status. People who take drugs are not suffering from a disease and they do not necessarily have some pathological failing of will power.

A moral debate about driving

They may be imprudent or irrational in taking drugs, but then again, we all are, nearly every day, in various ways when we eat unhealthily, engage in risky sports, smoke, drink or gamble.A platform for public participation in and discussion of the human perspective on machine-made moral decisions.

Apr 04,  · A moral argument against the war on drugs.

A moral argument against the war on drugs | Practical Ethics

Published April 4, | By Julian Savulescu. There is a hidden moral debate driving the war on drugs that we never seem to bring out in the open. The original drug prohibitions had a moral rationale rather than a practical one.

Search National Review. Search Text offers a fuller picture of the moral vision driving today’s pro-life movement and creates a stark contrast In . Oct 22,  · Self-driving cars are already cruising the streets.

But before they can become widespread, carmakers must solve an impossible ethical dilemma of Author: Emerging Technology From The Arxiv. What moral code should your self-driving car follow?

As self-driving cars become more advanced, auto makers may have to answer centuries-old philosophical debates -- and they're starting to realize it. Oct 22,  · Self-driving cars are already cruising the streets. But before they can become widespread, carmakers must solve an impossible ethical dilemma of Author: Emerging Technology From The Arxiv. As self-driving cars become more advanced, auto makers may have to answer centuries-old philosophical debates -- and they're starting to realize it.

an issue that has been central to the ongoing debate about their use. But German scientists now think otherwise. Apr 04,  · There is a hidden moral debate driving the war on drugs that we never seem to bring out in the open.

A moral debate about driving

The original drug prohibitions had a moral rationale rather than a practical one. It began with the American prohibition of opium, which was primarily motivated by a moral objection to white people smoking in Chinese-run opium dens.

Why Self-Driving Cars Must Be Programmed to Kill - MIT Technology Review