Statistical Morality

Recently I read an article in the Colorado Springs Gazette that was very thought-provoking.  The article focused on the current speed limit on the Interstate through the city.  Apparently, the limit on the Interstate is being raised from 55 mph to 65 mph (don't worry, this isn't just an article about local affairs; it has real-life application).

The main consideration taken by the city of Colorado Springs when deciding whether to raise the speed limit was that 80% of drivers were already driving at 69.5 mph.  If a majority of the drivers on the Interstate were already speeding, why not just raise the speed limit?

To many this may seem like an appealing method of changing laws.  To me, it seems like a very dangerous method of reasoning.  It is what is called 'statistical ethics': legally considering something ethically and morally right because a majority of constituents are found to consider it right.

But this brings up a lot of questions in my mind.  Why didn't the city decide to change the speed limit to 69.5 mph?  When the limit is changed to 65 mph, will 80% of people start driving at 79.5 mph?  If 80% of people were breaking some other law, would the city change or amend that law?

But it is hard to legislate when there is no clear definition of what is right and what is wrong.  The majority arbitrarily decides on these definitions, and subsequently chooses a punishment for any crime.

This leads us to a point where there is no logical basis for our government besides statistics.  But using statistics in legislation is meaningless: statistics are the basis of the laws, but the basis of the statistics is mere arbitration.  Laws are determined by mere whimsy; the majority's feelings decide what is right and what is wrong.

This argument presupposes a fundamentally humanist perspective - man (or at least the plurality of men) is basically good and makes right decisions regarding fellow humans.  If this is a person's worldview, that person should, by definition, be satisfied with the implementation of statistical ethics in the making of laws.

But I must differ.  Mankind must rely on a supernatural source (namely, God) to define good and evil.  God, in His very existence, demonstrates what is good and what is not good.  Without Him and His word to define good, mankind would be lost in a whirlwind of self-fancy.

So forget statistical morality - our lawmakers need to start (dare I mention that taboo phrase?) legislating morality.  Without God and His definitions of good and evil, a government is doomed to self-destruct.

Sadly, most of the people in Colorado Springs probably found nothing inherently wrong with raising the speed limit because a majority drivers were speeding.  But I, for one, will not become too quickly enamored with this idea of statistical morality that pervades our society.