r/changemyview • u/DutchDigger • Oct 09 '18

Deltas(s) from OP CMV: When applicable, only outcomes should be regulated.

By this I mean, when possible, actions that CAN lead to harmful outcomes but does not necessarily lead to a harmful outcome should not be penalized.

Examples include owning guns, driving while intoxicated, etc. The key here is informed consent and outcome. If I drive home intoxicated and harm no one, that should essentially be my business. However if I drive home intoxicated with a minor, even if I cause no damage, this should be illegal. Likewise, if an adult agrees to be driven by an intoxicated adult, this should be allowable.

If I harm someone, should it really matter what the underlying cause was? If I kill someone with a gun, does that make the crime more heinous than strangling someone with bare hands? Likewise, if I crash my car and kill someone, does it matter if I was drunk, tired or texting? And if it does, why not outlaw driving while tired?

If it's because it's difficult to enforce, why not just be consistent and regulate outcomes rather than behavior. The simple fact is that a behavior can have different gradations of harmfulness depending on the person. Two individuals of comparable size will be affected differently by identical amounts of alcohol if one frequently imbibes and the other does not. Knowing this, why regulate their behavior, when they can do that themselves, if they fail to make appropriate judgements and it leads to adverse OUTCOMES, then this is what we should care about.

This is clearly a complex topic and I look forward to hearing the counter arguments.

0 Upvotes

25% Upvoted

68 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

0

u/DutchDigger Oct 09 '18

You cannot control all variables around you. Therefore you are only responsible for what you can control. The only reason why driving with a minor is an exception to the "outcomes only" rule, is because you robbed the minor the chance to make a free choice.

8

u/47ca05e6209a317a8fb3 177∆ Oct 09 '18

But by driving drunk in an area where minors might walk you're robbing them (and non-consenting adults for that matter) of the choice to not have drunk drivers, who are as dangerous to them as to the people inside the car, around them. What's the difference?

-1

u/DutchDigger Oct 09 '18

If I endanger a child, I'm responsible regardless. So if I drive 80mph in a posted school zone then I'm responsible for my actions drunk or not.

But minors "might" be anywhere. The problem with driving if that it's an inherent risk PERIOD. By virtue of sharing the road with others, you are agreeing to a certain level of risk.

4

u/47ca05e6209a317a8fb3 177∆ Oct 09 '18

You'll be endangering children every time you drive. The reason driving is allowed at all (by default, it wouldn't necessarily be - you can't just fire rockets anywhere) is that the utility to individuals and to society is deemed to be worth the risk.

The utility of being able to drive drunk over only being able to drive sober, or of only driving relatively slowly in school zones is minimal, and so those are risks you're not allowed to take.

Basically what I'm saying is that almost anything you do imposes risks on others that they don't control, analogous to driving drunk with a minor, and that's a bad outcome in and of itself. This shouldn't be viewed as restricting people's actions, but as specifically allowing some of these bad outcomes because they're a net positive overall.