I understand the situation a little better now.
But i still think that changing your course of actions based upon the probability of danger to others–others being strangers who are of no value (except for potential value) to me–is immoral or at the very least amoral.
And if you are going with probability, at what probability should you change your actions: 20%?, 50%?
For example, say you were driving in a heavy duty truck or an SUV and you have enough safety devices to assure that in case of an accident you and your car would remain perfectly fine (obviously this is hypothetical and as you can see, i’m trying to remove all the potential risk to yourself involved in the process). Now say you were running late for a really important business meeting and you could lose millions if you didn’t reach there on time.
Wouldn’t it be moral for the person to go on the highway at 100 mph? Of course he’s not trying to crash and he’ll avoid other cars as much as possible.
It seems that the Objectivist response would say, “The government shouldn’t regulate how fast cars can go. I can drive as fast as I’d like - so long as I don’t physically harm anyone else. It is morally corrupt to punish the innocent.” However, I’d like to think that there’s some kind of moral gradient. I would say, “In a perfect world, the government wouldn’t regulate how fast I can go, but in a perfect world, other individuals wouldn’t risk my life for their desire to drive a speeding vehicle. I will sacrifice my innocence in this scenario, because it’s not THAT much of a big deal. It’s not THAT devastating to my individual rights. It’s a small sacrifice that I’m willing to make for the general benefit of the public, and therefore, myself.”
This sounds rather Utilitarian (I presume it’s not)… might you care to elaborate?
In a perfect world, roads would be privatized and thus the owner of the road would determine what speed is safe for travel. (Though I myself have some questions about this, but it deserves another thread. So don’t bring up examples in an attempt to refute it here please. 
)
Zak
But i still think that changing your course of actions based upon the probability of danger to others–others being strangers who are of no value (except for potential value) to me–is immoral or at the very least amoral.
Not hardly. I don’t think you are considering your self-interests as a man who has to live in a social context. What you are essentially saying is, you can be negligent with respect to other people’s right to life as long as they represents no specific value to you, and you are not posing a danger to yourself. The part of your self-interest that you are neglecting is the impact that such an attitude would have on you if all the other drivers out there drove with the same mentality and there were no “rules of the road”.
Consider the environment in which you drive if virtually all the other drivers on the road had the same lack of regard for you as you do for them, no value, and there are no constraints to regulate traffic flow. Is this the environment you want to support? Do you have a value in not having someone careen into your car at 125 MPH because they don’t want to be late for work? Is it not in your self-interest to have laws that regulate driving to some reasonable degree so that the millions of other people on the roads don’t play bumper car with you all the time?
And if you are going with probability, at what probability should you change your actions: 20%?, 50%?
It’s not probability in numbers so much as it should be an objective review of the geographical location in question. How much vehicular traffic is there? How many pedestrians? What are the road conditions? What’s the visibility like? etc. etc. That’s why it’s reasonable to have different speed limits and different traffic control measures depending on the specific area.
For example…
While others might, I don’t generally answer hypotheticals that are removed from reality. Your hypothetical does not reflect reality, so I don’t see a benefit in considering it for guiding my behavior. Aside from that, I think you are again ignoring your interests as a man who has to live in a social context. I’m not even going to hazard a guess as to your driving skills, because I have some experience and knowledge of what happens to people who are “good drivers” driving down the highway at 100 MPH. Crashed and burned… Let me tell, human beings smell horrible when they are on fire. $1,000,000 doesn’t help severed heads. All roads can’t realistically be the Autobahn.
So it’s immoral to endanger others’ lives?
So if i have guns in my house and there’s a possibility that a thief will steal them and use them against someone, i’m endangering their lives and i shouldn’t have guns?
You are responsible for your actions. The thief is responsible for his actions.
If i’m an airplane pilot, i’m being immoral because i’m endangering people’s lives because something might go wrong just as it would if i was speeding when i’m late for work.
It is immoral for a pilot to intentionally expose his passengers to more risk than flight conditions make necessary–which is the amount of risk they implicitly agree to take when purchasing an air ticket.
Or an even more related example, there’s always a chance of an accident even at low speeds. Does that mean i should stop driving altogether?
Umm … if your driving skills are such that there is literally always a chance of an accident while you drive–then yes, perhaps you should!
I think the whole altruism vs. benevolence thing got to me.
So as i understand it, a rational man would respect others’ lives and their right to live but don’t have the responsibility to make sure that they maintain it (which is what an altruist might say).