Note also you just recreated the classic deontology vs utilitarianism tradeoff.
It’s “it’s good to obey rules because obeying rules is itself a virtue” vs “it’s good to take the actions that will have the best projected consequences”.
Obviously in a physical finite universe, utilitarianism is correct*. And rationality is a close cousin of it.
However, in a society of government and laws, deontology is much more convenient. Easier for individuals to obey, easier to enforce. This is why, for instance, you aren’t allowed to ignore stop signs and red lights at night when there is no traffic.
*when you have data about the given situation of sufficient quality, and correct algorithms to process it. Example, the actions taken by an aircraft stability control system vs a set of written “laws of how to fly a plane by the Senate Committee on Aviation”.
I’m proposing trying to bring the rules closer to what would have good consequences, which in this case combines with something that’s easier to enforce.
Authorities find “if you’re in the bus lane and you’re not a bus, punish” easier to enforce than your proposal which is just “do what you want in the bus line but don’t get caught delaying a bus”.
Also note in practice that speed limits, etc, are enforced that way. Most of the highway, most of the time, they are ignored.
I’m proposing that the only enforcement be that buses should have cameras which they use to automatically capture the license plates of anyone blocking a bus. Why do you think that is harder for authorities than a combination of automated bus enforcement and police occasionally pulling people over?
Note also you just recreated the classic deontology vs utilitarianism tradeoff.
It’s “it’s good to obey rules because obeying rules is itself a virtue” vs “it’s good to take the actions that will have the best projected consequences”.
Obviously in a physical finite universe, utilitarianism is correct*. And rationality is a close cousin of it.
However, in a society of government and laws, deontology is much more convenient. Easier for individuals to obey, easier to enforce. This is why, for instance, you aren’t allowed to ignore stop signs and red lights at night when there is no traffic.
*when you have data about the given situation of sufficient quality, and correct algorithms to process it. Example, the actions taken by an aircraft stability control system vs a set of written “laws of how to fly a plane by the Senate Committee on Aviation”.
I’m proposing trying to bring the rules closer to what would have good consequences, which in this case combines with something that’s easier to enforce.
Authorities find “if you’re in the bus lane and you’re not a bus, punish” easier to enforce than your proposal which is just “do what you want in the bus line but don’t get caught delaying a bus”.
Also note in practice that speed limits, etc, are enforced that way. Most of the highway, most of the time, they are ignored.
I’m proposing that the only enforcement be that buses should have cameras which they use to automatically capture the license plates of anyone blocking a bus. Why do you think that is harder for authorities than a combination of automated bus enforcement and police occasionally pulling people over?
I think it’s harder for authorities write and pass the law you propose.