21–30 of 37 posts
The moral argument in favor of rejecting this app pivots around whether it does in fact enable more drunk driving. If it does, there doesn't seem to be good justification for allowing the app to exist. I don't think the calculus should be any more complicated than this. Edit: I'll disclaim that I have a bias, having had a friend die drinking and driving.
While I don't condone drunk driving at all and personally don't have a use for this app as I don't drink and drive this is just one more example of why I'm an android user. I don't need papa jobs looking out for me.
The moral argument in favor of rejecting this app pivots around whether it does in fact enable more drunk driving. If it does, there doesn't seem to be good justification for allowing the app to exist. I don't think the calculus should be any more complicated than this. Edit: I'll disclaim that I have a bias, having had a friend die drinking and driving.
Anyone know of a web app that's doing substantially the same thing?
The moral argument in favor of rejecting this app pivots around whether it does in fact enable more drunk driving. If it does, there doesn't seem to be good justification for allowing the app to exist. I don't think the calculus should be any more complicated than this. Edit: I'll disclaim that I have a bias, having had a friend die drinking and driving.
I disagree. I think the argument is more about who gets to decide what is "moral" and who gets to promote/enforce that morality.
If I have a kill switch on my platform for apps that endanger people and I see that the app is endangering people, I'll feel a moral obligation to toggle that kill switch. Again, this is a rather straightforward call.
The moral argument in favor of rejecting this app pivots around whether it does in fact enable more drunk driving. If it does, there doesn't seem to be good justification for allowing the app to exist. I don't think the calculus should be any more complicated than this. Edit: I'll disclaim that I have a bias, having had a friend die drinking and driving.
Should the calculus for banning vehicles or alcohol be any more complicated than whether they enable more drunk driving?
I think this is a fairly grey area, and I assume people are aware of the same thing. Instead of taking the gamble, I would looking into contacting someone related to the app review process and check if it would be acceptable.
To be fair, there are plenty of reasons to avoid DUI checkpoints even if you're not driving impaired. They tend to substantially slow down traffic, for one.
To be fair, there are plenty of reasons to avoid DUI checkpoints even if you're not driving impaired. They tend to substantially slow down traffic, for one.
To be fair, there are plenty of reasons to avoid DUI checkpoints even if you're not driving impaired. They tend to substantially slow down traffic, for one.
Not to mention the fact that they violate the 4th amendment and even the founder of MADD is against them.
Where society's need is great and no other effective means of meeting the need is available, and intrusion on people's privacy is minimal, checkpoints toward that end may briefly detain motorists. In Michigan v. Sitz 496 U.S. 444 (1990), the Supreme Court allowed discretionless sobriety checkpoints.