Self-centeredness, or failing to take into account the dangers to others from your actions, is still the root of the action. My personal desire to help someone who has either insufficiently planned their own ride home, or has a plan fall through, is still a decision wherein I weigh the value I place on getting a friend shelter against the acknowledged danger of driving drunk. These examples you bring up are merely compounding reasons, as I suggested.
It's really not self-centered. Perhaps, you ought to define what you think "self-centered" is. Suppose person A takes that all that into account when offering a ride? There doesn't have to be a personal desire to help someone. A person can help someone else because of duty or other reasons besides desire. You didn't prove at all how self-centered is at the root of the scenario for person A. Moreover, if the paragraph above is your attempt, you failed to prove how self-centeredness is the basis.
I fully acknowledge that there are many such circumstances at play when someone decides to drink and drive, and also I acknowledge that being drunk itself is a compounding reality on the decision one makes to drive drunk. It is nonetheless still true that the basic dynamic of this choice is one in which potential harm to others - not to mention harm against yourself - is weighed against a desire to drive drunk, for whatever reason this may be important. When the decision is made to drive drunk, it is made for personal reasons by the driver, therefore, it is selfish.
The mere act of being drunk does not result in harm to oneself or someone else. There is always the possibility of harm, but that's not out of the ordinary. If anything, the likelihood of harm
can be increased. I don't think it's selfish to drive drunk necessarily. Selfishness entails only caring for oneself, interests, etc. A drunk driver is not compelled to solely think about himself/herself and his/her motives, interests, and so on. It depends upon the reasoning that determines a driver's mindset, whether it be selfish or not. You're asserting that there is only one reason, self-centeredness.
Also, it's not always personal reasons. The example I described disproves how it is "only personal reasons." I mentioned already mentioned that in the paragraph above.
Yes, but what is the thrust of this argument then? Drinking and driving is MORE dangerous than is driving sober, and is also the result of a choice to do so. The fact that driving sober is potentially dangerous is completely unrelated to this point. As I tried to suggest in my first post, many things are dangerous, such as operating a chainsaw, or driving a bus full of children. This fact alone does not give one license to do these things more dangerously by getting drunk.
More often than not, drinking and driving more dangerous than driving sober. To say it always is, or phrase it so absolutely as you did, is false. Indeed, it is a choice to drink and drive. Most decisions and actions in life involve choice. I never said anything close to "giving one license to do these things..." My response was merely to oppose your support to your thesis how "drinking and driving is self-centered."
It is, to the extent that we can fairly execute this decision, by use of breathalyzers, sobriety tests and blood tests.
My point is that self-centered relates to a disregard for the rights to safety of others. I mentioned the law because you challenged the definition of drunk driving. I also mentioned common parlance. The law is not perfect, but its spirit is for the protection of the public from drunk drivers, which was really the only point I was making there. Disregarding public safety, as reflected in common sense notions of justice and the laws that exist against drunk driving, is a selfish decision.
Execute what decision? You ought to be more specific with that statement. What if one factors of all what you stated such as "the rights to safety of others" and so on, yet still drives? Are you implying that someone can still account for all of that and choose to drive anyways? That's not necessarily disregarding safety for others or oneself no more than it is if someone is a shitty driver, who often causes accidents, deciding to drive. Again, it's not necessarily selfish to drive drunk. You're assuming that your claim is true and proceeding from there, instead of proving that it's selfish, then establishing it to be true.
Of course, the law is established to protect people from both potential and actual harm against drinking and driving caused incidents; however, it doesn't necessarily mean that the law is right in its actual application or execution of that idea. I've already stated how I support the notion of laws against drinking and driving.
You're completely ignoring the levels of drunkenness as I've stated multiple times, which is a major component to drinking and driving and the consequences of such activities.
Maybe this is one of the grey areas you warned against earlier, but I think its a fair point to make: society has a need for specific anti-drunk-driving laws. These laws absolutely reduce accidents and fatalities overall. Though the articulation of them might be a bit clumsy, they are necessary. We have laws now which set established limits for drunkenness as related to blood alcohol or breathalyzer results which are averaged across humankind. Sure, its a bit unfair for my blood alcohol level to be compared directly against a 47-year old, 95 pound female teetotaler, but what is the alternative?
Again, you're going off the original subject and segueing into another one. The law has its purpose and is effective. I didn't dispute either of those claims; however, the actual application of the law can be questioned. There are plenty of alternatives. In the U.S. for instance, the U.S. federal and/or state governments could greatly develop public transportation so that public transportation is the common and rational means for traveling. Unlike western Europe, the U.S.' public transportation is pretty fucking shitty overall.
I also don't think it's true that a potential drunk driver should be trusted in his appraisal of his driving abilities. What is a "fair" level of inebriation for a really skilled driver who can also really hold his booze? Given that, by your own admission, drinking and driving increases the possibility of endangering lives, drinking to the extent that this is a factor is a selfish, scummbagish approach to the world - and it is known that it is a factor at even relatively low levels.
Why are you even mentioning appraisal? I spoke nothing of that sort. I am insisting how the levels of drunkenness and degree of blood alcohol content vitally matter because they are defining differences between individuals. You're attempting to unjustly and erroneously confine my response into a fabricated and limited view. It depends on the blood alcohol content, tolerance, driving skills, etc. of the individual. The law merely attempts to enforce a general standard for the masses. "By my own admission?" I have stated multiple times how I think drinking and drinking often heightens the possibility endangering lives. It's not always the case that it does. It's not a scumbaggish and self-centered approach. It can be of that type, but it does not have to be. Moreover, it is not always scumbaggish and self-centered. You still haven't proven why your claim about "drinking and driving is scumbaggish and self-centered"
might be be true. It's your opinion. Mine is different than yours.
