Random Thoughts: Pop Machine Morality
I'm a big believer in the honor system. Not very many people are anymore, so this makes me look like a sucker sometimes. I trust people to do the right thing and give them every opportunity to do so. Sure, I'm disappointed sometimes, but there is no better alternative.
Law makers and corporations seem to think they have a better alternative. They strive to replace the honor system with laws and safeguards that patently prevent people from doing the wrong thing.
For example - people who fear the misuse of guns would like to make laws preventing anyone from having one. That way it is no longer up to the individual to decide whether or not to go on a shooting spree and kill a lot of other people. Sure, we would lose the freedom to bear arms, but we would gain the security of knowing that if someone wanted to kill us, they couldn't do it with a gun.
Another example - pop machines (or soda machines if you prefer) are designed to ensure that you pay for your can or bottle of pop before you can get it - replacing the honor system with a physical barrier. That way the vendor doesn't have to worry about someone who doesn't have honor taking his pop without paying for it.
On the surface this seems like a good plan - if people can't do the wrong thing then the problem is solved without worrying about individual variance - everyone can't help but comply. Unfortunately like so many other things that seem like good ideas, you can't know if it's good or not until you've seen the long term effects. The long term effects of a system that replaces morality or the honor system with legal or physical barriers, is that the people never develop a sense of morality about the thing that the barrier is protecting. The barrier or law becomes the only reason to abstain. That doesn't seem like so much of a problem until you see what happens when the barrier or law breaks down.
Ever see what happens when a pop machine breaks and starts spitting out cans without requiring payment? Woo-hoo free soda! People who would never consider stealing anything in their lives are suddenly perfectly willing to take a couple of cans of "free soda" without giving it a second thought. (Yes, I know, some people would still see it as stealing, but if you think they represent the majority, you've probably never seen a pop-machine break before) That moral barrier telling them not to do it simply isn't there because it never had a chance to develop. Now that the physical barrier is gone, there is literally no reason for them not to partake.
So what? The soda vendor loses a few dollars in pop until he can get his machine fixed. Big deal. So let's look at what happens when you make laws taking everyone's guns away to prevent them from being misused. What happens then when someone gets ahold of a gun anyway. The chances of them knowing gun safety are pretty much nil. The laws about gun use are pretty obscure considering that nobody is allowed to have them. The person has never been trained to use a gun, owing to the aforementioned hypothetical law, so the person has about as much chance of behaving responsibly as a 5-year old with a .45 magnum. Nice.
The bottom line is that it is dangerous to make laws or rules that seek to replace morality, because morality will quite literally atrophy.
Law makers and corporations seem to think they have a better alternative. They strive to replace the honor system with laws and safeguards that patently prevent people from doing the wrong thing.
For example - people who fear the misuse of guns would like to make laws preventing anyone from having one. That way it is no longer up to the individual to decide whether or not to go on a shooting spree and kill a lot of other people. Sure, we would lose the freedom to bear arms, but we would gain the security of knowing that if someone wanted to kill us, they couldn't do it with a gun.
Another example - pop machines (or soda machines if you prefer) are designed to ensure that you pay for your can or bottle of pop before you can get it - replacing the honor system with a physical barrier. That way the vendor doesn't have to worry about someone who doesn't have honor taking his pop without paying for it.
On the surface this seems like a good plan - if people can't do the wrong thing then the problem is solved without worrying about individual variance - everyone can't help but comply. Unfortunately like so many other things that seem like good ideas, you can't know if it's good or not until you've seen the long term effects. The long term effects of a system that replaces morality or the honor system with legal or physical barriers, is that the people never develop a sense of morality about the thing that the barrier is protecting. The barrier or law becomes the only reason to abstain. That doesn't seem like so much of a problem until you see what happens when the barrier or law breaks down.
Ever see what happens when a pop machine breaks and starts spitting out cans without requiring payment? Woo-hoo free soda! People who would never consider stealing anything in their lives are suddenly perfectly willing to take a couple of cans of "free soda" without giving it a second thought. (Yes, I know, some people would still see it as stealing, but if you think they represent the majority, you've probably never seen a pop-machine break before) That moral barrier telling them not to do it simply isn't there because it never had a chance to develop. Now that the physical barrier is gone, there is literally no reason for them not to partake.
So what? The soda vendor loses a few dollars in pop until he can get his machine fixed. Big deal. So let's look at what happens when you make laws taking everyone's guns away to prevent them from being misused. What happens then when someone gets ahold of a gun anyway. The chances of them knowing gun safety are pretty much nil. The laws about gun use are pretty obscure considering that nobody is allowed to have them. The person has never been trained to use a gun, owing to the aforementioned hypothetical law, so the person has about as much chance of behaving responsibly as a 5-year old with a .45 magnum. Nice.
The bottom line is that it is dangerous to make laws or rules that seek to replace morality, because morality will quite literally atrophy.
Comments
Post a Comment