Week 6: The Cost and Benefit of Virtual Violence

For week 6 the task was to read Chapter 5: The Cost and Benefit of Virtual Violence in ethics in the virtual world and answer the question below

What is Utilitarianism?

How does one decide which pleasure is prefered?

So lets start and answering What is Utilitarianism?

first once again i wanted to find out the definition of this word as i did not know the meaning before delving into the chapter the meaning of utilitarianism is:

An ethical philosophy in which the happiness of the greatest number of people in the society is considered the greatest good. According to this philosophy, an action is morally right if its consequences lead to happiness (absence of pain), and wrong if it ends in unhappiness (pain).

Read more: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/utilitarianism.html#ixzz45dvO8jZi

that is the classic version as described by Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill so what they are describing is that the moral act that achieves the most happiness is morally good while the moral act that achieves the least happiness then must not be classed as good.

so in a sense any STA that achieves unhappiness then that act must be prohibited? going by Bentham and Mill

but the both differ to what happiness should be measured by Bentham believes happiness can be measured quantitatively by using an hedonistic calculus

  "(Gr.hedone pleasure) a method of working out the sum total of pleasure and pain produced by an act, and thus the total value of its consequences; also called the felicific calculus; sketched by Bentham in chapter 4 of his Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation (1789). When determining what action is right in a given situation, we should consider the pleasures and pains resulting from it, in respect of their intensity, duration, certainty, propinquity, fecundity (the chance that a pleasure is followed by other ones, a pain by further pains), purity (the chance that pleasure is followed by pains and vice versa), and extent (the number of persons affected). We should next consider the alternative courses of action: ideally, this method will determine which act has the best tendency, and therefore is right. Bentham envisaged the calculus could be used for criminal law reform: given a crime of a certain kind it would be possible to work out the minimum penalty necessary for its prevention." 

and this enables all activities to be judge on the same level

While Mill believes a qualitative is best to measure you need to distinguish between lower pleasures and higher pleasures and he regards there is a difference value with different pleasure's. 
So According to Mill for an action to be of Moral worth its not enough for it to be analysed through a person's happiness 

So if we think in the game space if a player is inflicted an STA on an NPC and has gained some satisfaction and enjoyment even thou the NPC does not feel any pain from this then by Bentham version then it must be morally good. 
and with Mill version that you should not pursue and activity that makes me happy but at the same time reduces the general happiness and should purse activities that not only make me happy but has the benefit of everyone else and if that action generates  in someone or some people then that action must be morally bad.

I kind of hard to agree with either theories for Bentham for example i hate going to the hospital does that then imply that hospitals are morally bad
and with Mill although it makes sense to go with the majority of people feelings does that mean it is right what if the vast majority favors going to war but the minority favors not going to war does that mean the majority is right i kind of disagree especially if the majority don't have the right information or facts to back there decision.

To answer the second question, How does one decided which pleasure is preferred?

this is a difficult question to answer how do you decide which pleasure is preferred so if you class a dangerous act as a act that you risk yourself and others harm  or a harmful act that results in direct harm or injury and finally a risk increasing act that acts is a risk that increases the chances of a person in doing a harmful or dangerous act 

in games this is views that where sensationalized a few years ago and even bought the families to launch legal suits to computer game companies 
read the article below for more info:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1295920.stm 

Even thou in previous article's as discussed there is evidence that games don't cause aggression and if so it more affects empathy and social skills than aggression. and in some cases as posted on earlier can help putting people in situations in the virtual world that deals with dangerous and harmful acts and realise they might need help.

Manufacturers will always fall back on that there is not enough evidence or scientific proof that says violence in video games will lead to violent acts in the outside world 

For instance as i was growing up i used to practice and fight pretend wrestling matches with my friends as i wanted copy my heroes at the time even thou the wrestling shows show reels telling the audience never to try this at home. 

The point i'm making is that in all media that there is we  as people have access to a variety of content and influence us that could be deemed harmful, dangerous and a risk and some people find it pleasurable some wont see it that way, So you can't hide content it's up to the individual to make the choice what the they want access to it.

For example as an individual i don't like or want to watch violent horror films like saw i find the mutilation and the murders in the movie distasteful does not mean that the content should them be banned as others might find that entertaining and its up to the viewers or players choice if they want to continue playing or watching if it affects their moral's as when you see the product they are not hiding what will be in there. 

Week 5: Kant's Call of Duty

For Week 5 we had two tasks too complete first was to read chapter 4: Kant's Call of Duty and answer the following question 

What is the 'catagorical imperative'?

Another task is too listen to this podcast  The Economics of Good and Evil: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06ybnh1#play which i will talk more about in another post 

So for now i want to answer the question set What is Catagorical Imperative?

First of all i have no idea what this means before i read the chapter so first i want to see if i can find a briefly the meaning of this before reading the chapter what i found is that it means: (in Kantian ethics) an unconditional moral obligation which is binding in all circumstances and is not dependent on a person's inclination or purpose.

So my understanding is that its moral condition that will not change for any circumstances regardless of a person feeling on the subject and that they are driven by reason and rationale than as opposed to personal desires and goals so to Kant its when someone acts morally and rationally

in the book it talks about two formulations of Kant's theory the first formulation being that the person is driven by recourse to reason, in as much as it stipulates what the rational person ought to do in virtue of being a rational person

The second formulation involves in such a way as to treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of another, always at the same time as an end and never simply as a means.

in the book it disagrees with the first formulation and say it fails within single player games as their is not another person to consider when willing an action 

and the second formulation the same goes as there is not another person to act to in this scenario.

but what about multi player has implied the second formulation with bad sportsmanship and disrespecting others but that can occur even without the presence of STA's and with the first formulation that has agreed to enter the space know that several STA's can occur and if they do enter this space know full well that certain sta's do exist that cause distress then they are cause themselves harm and thus failing in there duty to protect themselves.

so this means that you should not engage with STA's because they are 'driven' by the sense of desire as opposed to reason and is likely people are to repeat STA's in reality as we are failing to do one's duty

which i'm sure i can't agree with by not engaging with STA's and ignore this problem unlike other media such as tv and film where they have explored many controversial issue's like rape, murder etc is something that needs to be recognize that exists and not hide under the carpet and its the game industry that need to challenge its maybe exploring these serious issues and not to glorify it in its game play 

How Video Games helping Soldiers deal with the after effects of War

With the last chapter Hume's Strength of a Feeling, i read in ethics in the virtual world and how violence in these games such as Call of Duty can be seen as disgusting 

but i remember and wanted to show that how these games can have a positive impact on people lives and can actual help people deal with problems that continue to affect them

i remember reading an article in 2014 about how video games in particular war games where helping soldiers get over the trauma of war 

you can read the article at the link below

http://kotaku.com/how-video-games-are-helping-returning-soldiers-to-cope-157893

The program in a sense guide's players through different scenario's in real life in what soldiers have to deal with when they come back from war or battles and those physiological scars develop over time and playing the game help them recognize and deal with problems 

"The War Inside is one of our most powerful programs on PTSD," says Sloane. "I have received numerous comments from service members and their spouses that the program helped to save their marriages, family relationships and even their own lives. In some cases it broke down the barriers that kept service members from talking about their problems. In others it made them feel less isolated. Some have sought and benefited from professional help [as a result]."

You can see how a program like this will be a huge benefit as soldiers believe that the should be able to cope with these problems as they are soldiers but that can be further from the truth, the game show the players what different scenarios they could encounter on there return and how choosing certain paths and what consequences that could happen when they don't deal with the problems that they face.

I find this really insightful and show how this immersion into a world that can make soldier recognize problems that exists and helps the player to realize they might have the same problems and these issue's can't be ignore and they are not alone

The positive power of games 

Week 4: Hume's Strength of Feeling

For week 4 we had to read chapter 4 of ethics in the virtual world, chapter 3: Hume's Strength of Feeling
and answer the following questions?

What is 'sentimentalism'?

If we find something disgusting is that thing morally wrong?

Does engaging in ultra-violent video games degrade one's ability to show empathy?

So lets start What is Sentimentalism?

First i wanted to get the meaning of this world before answering this question Sentimentalism is the practice of being sentimental, or the tendency to base actions and reactions from emotions and feelings as opposed to reason

which i find interesting as with most games when especially it involves violence sometimes there is no reasoning for it and is purely based on emotion and feelings in fact in the book it gives an example of that someones favorite gaming activity is that his avatar would go around assaulting characters with a large pink dildo when i read this at first a slight chuckle emerged but then my moral compass kicked in and puzzlement and a bit of disgust actual  as i read further my mind had the exact same thoughts what if it was a woman or a child this was happening in the game too. 

So with that if we find something disgusting is that thing morally wrong? 

this again is a very interesting take as it can be a Yes or No answer for example i find mayonnaise on my sandwich disgusting but that does not mean it is morally wrong to put mayo on sandwiches its my preference and taste that is dictating that emotion. where as pedophilia or rape i find disgusting also and would find it hard to imagine that a majority consensus would not argue that fact and i would find it hard accept there ethics if they could. 

the chapter does highlight that we borrow the use of the word disgust when describing moral transgressions, but we also use that world to describe situations of things that we are bad as describe above which could be confusing so it depends in the context what you mean by something is disgusting 

For example a disgusting act would be like in the case of grand theft auto there is no reason but you can just steal a car and go on a killing spree knocking down pedestrians that cross your path just cause you can an action with no reason least there is an consequence to that in the game the police will eventually stop chase after you and force you to either invade them or get captured. 

i find the thought of that disgusting but people find that a fun game play device and don't have any disgust but if that happened in a real life situation how would that person feel? 

So this sets nicely to the third question Does engaging in ultra-violent video games degrade one's ability to show empathy?

According to Chapter 3 there is insufficient evidence to support any conclusion either way but it in our nature to be able to show empathy and there argument is that engaging in violent video games should not affect you because its not a real world and that people can identify the difference between virtual and reality but what if you are constantly playing games especially at a young age. check out the link below:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-26049333

That talks about how over exposure to 13-14 years old affected there empathy if they have continued to play for long periods
that it would be difficult for children to avoid those games such is the widespread nature of violence in games as said by the researcher Mirjana Bajovic and it would be unrealistic to expect parents to prevent their children from seeing them.

The study said: "Spending too much time within the virtual world of violence may prevent [gamers] from getting involved in different positive social experiences in real life, and in developing a positive sense of what is right and wrong."

Although i still think that it depends on the person who plays violent games and how it affects them, I do believe at an young age if you are only play these game and not interacting in an social sense on the outside world your empathy will be less developed when you get to adulthood compared with others and signs of trust and concern for others might also be affect as as stated they are just pixels on the screen so why would you care and if as a child that is all you do then you don't develop those skills at an the age you are suppose to. but i don't think playing these game will make you have violent tendencies at go up to people and assault them like you would do in Grand theft Auto there will still be the sense of right and wrong but at a less develop stage

Interesting article: Video games show how criminals ‘justify’ killing

thought this article is very interesting in how it relates to week 3 question in that how the brain can justify certain activities with one being about killing

Dr Pascal Molenberghs from the Monash University said the results provided important insights into how people in certain situations, such as war, are able to commit extreme violence against others

the article explores how the brain reacts when shooting civilians compared to when they shoot enemy soldiers 

please read the link before as i think its a good insight on how the brain reacts to situations especially in games 

http://indianexpress.com/article/lifestyle/health/video-games-show-how-criminals-justify-killing/

Week 3:To Prohibit or Not Prohibit, That is the Question

For week 3 readings we were asked to read Ethics in the virtual world and answer two questions about chapter 1 and 2 topic To Prohibit or Not Prohibit, That is the Question

Are some forms of fiction (games) unimaginable for some individuals to engage with? 

Is it right to prohibit certain acts in the virtual space? What might those acts be and under what circumstances?

So lets attack the first question are there some form of fiction (games) unimaginable for some individuals to engage with? 

first of all lets see what are the biggest selling games on the market in the UK by unit sales with Fallout 4 (PS4) at 614,128 and Call of Duty: Black Op 3 (PS4) at 871, 521 and then you have Grand Theft Auto 5 (PS4) at 492,457 this is not counting xbox sales or online purchases but as you can see out except for Fifa 2016 all the games on the list you can check out on the link below:
http://www.statista.com/statistics/274184/sales-of-top-selling-console-games-at-retail-in-the-united-kingdom-uk/

the games involve you could say questionable content in the eyes people on the outside and to further highlight this in the chapter the author points to to questionable content in the games Call of duty: Modern Warfare 2 has now become infamous due to its civilian massacre scene while Grand Theft Auto IV courts regular controversy but in this version as it permits the players character to have sex with prostitutes before mugging them or killing them for the money. 
There is also the issue that these games although age restricted are widely and easy available for a larger demographic than just over 18's. why is that? that can be discussed further on a later post but for now with access to this material easily available.

So in the context of video games can you judge a legitimate action or gaming strategy as morally good or morally bad that is based on someone that brutalize a stranger to the point of death  in Man hunter 2  or  when one sexually assaults and defeats a female opponent in Battle Raper are these morally bad things ok to engage in? then in the opposite end of the spectrum in the game Bioshock if you chose not to harvest the little sisters thats to kill little mutant children is this seen as a morally commendable act?
In further chapters of the book we need to explore moral theories that are used in our non gaming activities can they be legimately applied to our gaming worlds 
Hume's Sentimentalism, Kant's deontological approach and the consequentialism characteristic of utilitarianism and so on

but lets not look at this and answer the question as it is do you think its unimaginable for some to engage with that. as in most of these games the player is regular interacting with subject matter that is seen as taboo like murder, assault (sexual and physical) torture etc are classed as symbolic taboo activities (STA'S) as describe in the book 

one of the reasons / excuses that is coming using these STA's in these game worlds is that its just a game it's a virtual world that does not exist so in a sense this is very much a yes or no situation answering this question

for the yes side it can be seen 


for the no a recent article found here below
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/03/12/study-finds-no-evidence-violent-video-games-make-children-aggres/
states that it could find no evidence that violent video games affect and it was more the amount of time they spend playing games than the actual content that was the issue 
Dr Andy Przybylski, from Oxford University’s Oxford Internet Institute, the lead author, was quoted saying 
“Some are of the position that there is no reason to believe that video games are any different from any other kind of media and then there are those who are very concerned,”

But for the no side they have a equally compelling argument and in fact an article released last year stated the the opposite of the findings by Dr Przybylski where they describe violent video games has a risk factor for increased aggression to view the article have a look a the link below:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/study-finds-that-violent-video-games-may-be-linked-to-aggressive-behaviour-10458614.html

although the say the exposure to games is a risk factor to increased aggression they can't rule that its from games such as the Call of Duty franchise or Grand Theft Auto franchise.
Dr Mark Appelbaum who chaired the APA task force is quoted in saying 
"Scientists have investigated the use of violent video games for more than two decades but to date, there is very limited research addressing whether violent video games cause people to commit acts of criminal violence.
"However, the link between violence in video games and increased aggression in players is one of the most studied and best established in the field.

So Although they can't say for definite that games can cause violence it you can not say for 100% that there is not a risk or a risk factor of over exposure to violence that this won't increase aggression.

plus another argument is that should children be playing games that involve death and killing in the first place just like in other media they are restricted to what they are allowed to see and the fact they have not got a full understanding of ethics and moral code to work from and should we let children access to games that engage you to command your avatar to hurt, kill or steal.

So to answer the second question Is it right to prohibit certain acts in the virtual space? What might those acts be and under what circumstances?

a phrase that is far often used to describe certain acts in games that i find frustrating is "its just a game" or its just pixels and doesn't exist yes that is true but you can not use that to justify violence and gory you put into a game their must be a justification for it. 

in the book it takes a game of chess and then adds certain 

but is it right to prohibit certain acts currently in the UK murder and assault is considered part of the game while pedophilia, rape and bestiality are consider an no go in games or are out right banned, all though there is a part of me that agrees with that struggles to argue why this while murder and assault is widely accepted as musts in a game. all though a part of me believe that those acts should not be performed on a virtual level but if violence and murder is justified in that it seen to a replacement to the physical action then could that not be implied to those conditions as well something i can't argue with but my ethics and moral's that i have do have problems with it.
So right now i believe that this should still be the case but why do we think murder is ok in games then?

Week 2: WHAT IS ETHICS? AND IF IT'S LEGAL ITS ETHICAL RIGHT?

Hey Folks

For week 2 class we were asked to read two articles the first one is asking What is Ethics? from this source:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/introduction/intro_1.shtml

and the second article is asking If it's legal, Its ethical right? from this source:

http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/stories/2007-10-15/if-its-legal-its-ethical-right-businessweek-business-news-stock-market-and-financial-advice

and then answer the following questions

What is ethics? 

What use is ethics?

Are ethical statements objectively true? 

Where does ethics come from?

Are there universal moral rules?

What is the difference between ethics and law?


So lets start with the first question what is ethics? from the source above ethics in its simplest form is a system of moral principles that have been created that will affected how people make decisions and lead their lives.

ethics is a term that has that derived from the Greek word of ethos which can mean custom, habit, character or disposition, ethics main concern is with what is good for individuals and society which can also be described as moral philosophy.

Our ethics have been developed and continue to do through religion, philosophies and cultures and have continue debates on topics like abortion, human rights and professional conduct. 
normal responses for ethics has to do with what feelings tell me what right or wrong, ethics has to do with my religious beliefs, being ethical is doing what the law requires, ethics consists of the standards of behavior our society accepts. and finally i don't know what that word means are all common responses when discussing ethics
But philosophers of our time have divided ethical theories into three camps

meta-ethics: deals with the nature of moral judgement, it looks at the origins and meanings of ethical judgement

Normative ethics: concerns itself with the content of moral judgments and the criteria for what is right and wrong

Applied ethics: looks at controversial situations and topics like war, animal rights and capital punishment  

looking more into what is ethics another quote from this site backs up the feeling that ethical questions are part of everyday life 
http://www.ethics.org.au/about/what-is-ethics

"We ask ethical questions whenever we think about how we should act. Being ethical is a part of what defines us as human beings".

ethics isn't just a tool for philosophers or intellectuals to debate and have a say. Ethics at its core is part of everyday life, ethical questions explore what Aristotle called  'a life well lived'.

https://www.scu.edu/ethics/ethics-resources/ethical-decision-making/what-is-ethics/

in the article above puts ethics into two things. First ethics refers to well-founded standards of right and wrong that prescribe what humans ought to do. Ethics for example should impose reasonable obligations to refrain from rape, stealing, murder, assault, slander and fraud. but Ethics also recognize virtues of honesty, compassion and loyalty, and set standards that relate to rights such as the right to life, the right to privacy and so on.
Second ethics refers to the study and continuous development of one's ethical standards as feelings, laws and social norm can deviate from what is ethical meaning its necessary to constantly examine and the continuous effort of studying.

So what use is ethics in our society and what we do as people?
in the article as part of our reading it states that  philosophers think theories are useful in practice and affect the way humans behave, they believe that humans will realize it would be morally good to do something then it would be irrational for that person not to do it.
But humans as a species are very irrationally and often follow gut instincts as its called to justify a course of action they take.
so the question is why be ethical lots of people judge things by gut and instinct and don't use ethics to justify it like to play devil advocate in a sense. Being ethical can also come at a personal cost so what use can ethics be if it means we can't exploit other people, tell lies or steal, why these things are in our best interests or what if you are in a situation where you have no choice?.

So are ethical statements objectively true? the problem that is highlighted in the article is that many people follow different ethical codes and moral beliefs there might be something one country that is ethically wrong but the other side of the world they few it differently. So the question is that if they are ethical truths then we as humans don't seem very good at discovering them or even agreeing to them.
it states then ethical properties should exist independently from human beings and that the statements give knowledge about the objective world and whatever people think or feel they exist regardless of what people believe.
but in the article i discovered here below
http://enlightenedworldview.com/blog/?title=can-ethics-be-objective&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1
it challenges the term can ethics be objective?
it establishes clear terminology that even thou people often speak of "objective" as referring to things that are true regardless of anyone's point of view, in fact it means a treatment of things that attempt to be from a neutral point of view.
and how can we as humans be objective when most of our decisions are made with several different ways one being subjectivity, is more about the person's on feelings and attitudes on the subject without using factual truths while emotive is the view morals are just expressions of approval and disapproval, it sounds similar to subjectivity but the difference is doesn't just provide information about their feelings on the subject they express those feelings and acts like an instruction on how others should act towards it and finally prescriptive is the believe that ethical statements are in fact instructions or recommendations like saying something is good gives validation you can do it and saying something is bad is telling someone you can't do that.

but with these statements being made with these emotions states how can you say they are ethical right who is deciding if there statements are in fact true and should be followed is it just an universally accepted decision or in time do these statements are allowed to change and develop as attitudes change and new understanding and knowledge changes?

So where does ethics come from? there are several answers to this question to be told some will give god and religion as the reasons, others will give human conscience and intuition, while its political power is the driving force behind it and the list goes on. cause almost every individual claims to have a code or ethics they follow whether being religous leaders to political leaders to gangsters and even serial killers has set of ethics and code they follow.
in the article Ethics by Peter Singer http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/1985----.htm he describes ethics beginnings as something that came into existence the moment humans started to reflect on the best way to live, with every human society has some sort of myth explaining the origin of morality examples like in the Louvre in Paristhere is a black babylonian column witha relief showing the sun god shamash presenting the code of laws to hammurabi. the old testament account of god giving the ten commandments to moses on Mt.  Sinai, even in plato's Protagoras there is a mythical account of how zeus took pity on humans as the weakest and no matcxh to other beasts and to make up for this zeus gave humans a moral sense and the capacity of law and justice. But these are all religious account of our sense of ethics and morality, but what about outside of religion how did our ethics develop. another way to look at possible human development is that we as humans are social animals living in groups an characteristic shared with many other animal species including apes our closest relative looking at non human behaviors requires constraints. no group can stay together if they constantly attack each other they either refrain from it or if the attack takes place its does not result in a fight to the death also they show togetherness and and behave in ways that benefit the group example like wolves bring back meat from a kill to members of the pack that where not there.
but the article states that that this altruistic behavior is odd and goes against the natural selection process but research in evolutionary theory applied to social behavior however shows that it needs not be so ruthless after all

like when parents make sacrifices for their offspring. if wolves help their cubs survive its more likely that genetic characteristic of helping their own cubs will spread through further generations of wolves. and you could say that is how humans have developed there own morality and ethics through changing and adapting through generations but still holding that core ethics form previous generations.

So are there universal moral rules? do unchanging moral rules apply to all cultures at all times at they are two stand points Moral Absolutism where people think there are such universal rules that apply to everyone and argues that there are some moral rules that are always true and apply to everyone no matter what reason, unlike Moral relativism says that if you look at different cultures or different periods of time that you will have different moral rules and that it makes sense that good refers to things that a particular group of people approve of. so why disagree with either of these points first absolutism does not fit with respect for diversity and tradition while relativism people feel that moral rules have more to them than a general agreement with a group of people and that many improvements have come from people disagreeing with particular rules being set by a group of people.
But Havard psycologist Marc Hauser and other scientists have claimed that contrary to appearances there is a universal moral code but this article by Guy Kahane http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2010/06/a-universal-moral-code/ reviews the evidence as a range of moral dilemmas about killing others, their pattern of response is very similar regardless of nationality, religion, age or gender.
hauser does not mean either that humans follow the same set of moral norms, he believes that they are born with the disposition to respond to certain moral situations. So a universal moral code might be a set of underlying dispositions that are then influenced as time and understanding grows.

so the last question is what is the difference between ethics and law the article we were asked to read has highlighted some interesting points. it highlights a film crew when filming about alcoholism allowed a woman who was over the limit to drive they offered assistance but did not stop her from getting into the car. the response to this by a member of the team is that "the producers are treated like witnesses, they bear no responsibility to intervene"

this raised some interesting points like responsibility limited to what the law requires. if it is legally allowed does that mean we ought to. they are all answered with a no in the article

But this bring the whole ethics vs law question could you say you lived the best you can if you never broke any laws, but what if ethically that to do the right thing means going beyond the laws that are set in place the question the article ask is what should i do, and should not be what i should get away legally.

the differences between ethics and law is that laws change all the time and very from country to country and mostly its political and economic interests that get laws passed, while ethical standards change and mold through time and place regardless of politics.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1568475/Ten-stupidest-laws-are-named.html here is a list of some the most ridicules laws to date that still exists in our country that if you went by follow the laws then you have to adhere to like for example, It is an act of treason to place a postage stamp bearing the British monarch upside-down
what if you did that accidentally or did not realize cause you where in the rush if you followed the law to the letter you could get arrested for that 

So the standard should be what we ought to do ethical not legal our history of law making has been bad with the examples of woman not getting the vote the way african-americans were treated in the america shows that the law can get it wrong. laws are needed to keep order and or we as people will go into anarchy but they can not be binding, its through ethically question something is right or wrong that we can ask ourselves as the case of the woman drive being too drunk to drive ethical we should have stop that as in car that woman is a danger to herself and those around her even by law we did not need to.