Are red light cameras ethical?

[ManTimeForgot]

Inspired by the discussion about killing babies as well as a hypothetical scenario on a podcast I listen to, here's a real-life application of some of the ethical issues involved: red light cameras.

Red light cameras tend to decrease the frequency of angle ("T-bone") collisions while increasing the frequency of rear-end collisions. Depending on the crash characteristics of the intersection (specifically the percentages of rear-end and angle collisions), installing red light cameras can reduce the overall collision frequency for the intersection.

Also, on average, angle collisions tend to be more severe than rear-end collisions: an angle collision is more likely to injure or kill you than a rear-end collision (though injuries and deaths from rear-end collisions still happen).

Let's assume that we have an intersection like this: one where red light cameras will be effective at lowering the overall collision frequency and improving the average level of safety for drivers going through the intersection. If we install them, fewer people will be in collisions and fewer people will get hurt, but there will be people - people who have done nothing wrong... certainly nothing where a car collision would be a just punishment - who will be involved in collisions who weren't involved in them before as a result of installing the red light cameras.

This is just an example; there are all sorts of engineering decisions where reducing overall risk means increasing risk for one group even though the average risk goes down.

So... with all that in mind, are red light cameras ethical? Is it ethical to increase risk for one group of people in order to decrease average risk overall?

Is it ethical to increase the risk for one group in order to decrease the risk for a larger group (the same amount of risk increase/decrease)? Without knowing anything about the characteristics of the groups in question, then the answer will be, "Yes."

Is it ethical to increase the risk (a smaller amount) for one group in order to decrease the risk to another group (by a much larger amount)? Again, without knowing anything about the characteristics in question, then the answer will be, "Yes."

If, for instance, the smaller group in question were innocent victims of attempted murder/rape and the larger group in question are the associates and allies of convicted murderers/rapists, then restricting damage done to the smaller group might very well be in order even if it means inconveniencing and/or harming the larger group (sorry no visitation rights for the murderer-rapist's family; that's for the safety of the intended victims that remain).


This sort of discussion boils down to: "Do the ends justify the means?" The answer to that question is an unequivocal, "Yes," but it is not an unqualified, "Yes." We make ends means justifications in our daily lives all the time. Surgeons harm people in order to effect greater reduction in harm. Police restrict the freedoms of some people (or to a limited extent) in order to promote greater freedom/safety for society. The underlying principle behind "Red light cameras" is no different than these.

The qualification on "Ends versus Means" is that a positive "End" does not justify any and all "Means." If the means effects more harm than the end negates or heals harm done, then there does not exist sufficient justification. In the case of the OP, without knowing anything more than the information presented we can and should conclude that Red light cameras are the ethical decision.

That said it is trivially easy to render the implementation categorically unethical. If being caught via Red light camera resulted in people being fined 10,000 US dollars (or if we go for even further into the absurd: have camera mounted death rays), then you are left with something that should not be allowed.


Benefit generally - benefit to those intending to do harm to those that should not be harmed+ removal of harm generally - harm done to those that should not be harmed + (some fraction of the total as this should be sought to be avoided, though is at times necessary) harm done to those attempting to do harm to those that should not be harmed ~ moral worth of the situation.

Obviously the calculus involved is quite complex (the limit involved in determining the fraction associated with the harm prevention clause is difficult to determine), and so making the ultimate determination is going to be difficult, but this does not mean that we should throw the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak. We all use some form of this "equation," even if only subconsciously, whenever we try to determine the morality of a situation or to find ethical alternatives to questionable solutions currently implemented.

MTF