is it wrong to pass a Firetruck?

… when it’s lights are flashing, and it’s supposedly in Emergency mode?

on the beltway?

when it’s only going about 62 mph and you’re naturally going faster?

I mean, I wasn’t going to drive behind it just because it was there. it’s not like traffic was congested and we had to move to the right to let him pass. he was clearly not going very fast.
any thoughts?



Filed under Uncategorized

19 responses to “is it wrong to pass a Firetruck?

  1. Bryan

    I think it’s alright. I had a similar experience on Rt. 50 near Annapolis- an ambulance had its lights on, but didn’t seem to be exhibiting any real urgency. I suppose as long as we give ample room it is okay to pass.

  2. Do you mean wrong in the eyes of the law, or in a moral sense?
    I think it is illegal… Maryland has a pull-over rule, don’t they? I think it is morally neutral, though.
    Here in Nevada, we have to pull over even if it is divided roadway– that was a shocker to me the first time I saw the firetruck go up onto a median and cross into oncoming traffic.

  3. YAY — I’m morally neutral!


  4. KP

    fuck morals……….

  5. No, passing a firetruck is morally neutral.

  6. yes, I understand and what I meant was “in this instance I’m morally neutral”… I didn’t mean it as a blanket assessment.

    that would be a fun experiment — Morally Neutral Day… do everything in your power to not do anything bad, but not to anything good either. and not just in aggregate, but in each individual act throughout the day. actually, that would be exhausting.

    can we come up with a longer list of morally neutral acts?

  7. Sure, that one is easy…
    alcohol consumption
    hanging plastic monkeys from your spouse’s collar to see how long before he might notice…

  8. Amanda

    What about the chocolate Jesus? It is art, but is it morally neutral art?

  9. Art in and of itself is morally neutral. The question comes in the motivation.
    Chocolate Jesus? I actually find it more silly than anything. The image of Jesus is not sacred, is it? I mean, which image of Jesus would we hold sacred. Now, I think that taking artifacts which hold religious significance (Torah scrolls, Koran, crucifixes) and using them in a way which desecrates them would be a different case. But chocolate Jesus, I doubt it. If anything, it is simply a symbol of how religious holidays have been watered-down.

  10. that was a pretty long list Kelly, and with some actions that I know some sects deem are not morally acceptable… if it’s motivation that makes deeds immoral, then any act can be moral if done for the right reason?

    the chocolate jesus is candy, not art. as long as it is consumed, I have no problem with it. although I would not recommend consuming it in a morally reprehensible way…

  11. See, that’s the thing. There is no Biblical prohibition on any of those things listed. PEOPLE have put those taboos in place.
    There are some things which are absolutes. It would not be a moral to leave your husband/wife and family for another family. There is no question there, you know? However, scriptures do not spell out absolutely everything. With those activities, motivation comes into play.
    As for chocolate Jesus and art– that is something about which I actually have some knowledge. It’s art, and while I think it is silly, it certainly has gotten people talking, hasn’t it? Again, we are not talking about the desecration of something like a Koran dipped in chocolate or a crucifix suspended in a vial of urine… My biggest beef- that if was milk chocolate instead of dark. Ick.

  12. I think you may want to re-read what I said about absolutes and Truth. I am not sure you understand what I am saying, based on you recent comments.

  13. nope, clearly I don’t have a clue what you’re saying.

    would it be amoral to leave your wife and family if they all committed thier lives to Satan and made your home a place in which you can not live? so, maybe that’s not so absolute either? I think God would understand if you cut your losses and tried to do His will in better circumstances.

    how about Thou Shalt Not Kill? we have permissible killing for all kinds of reasons, and yet this is one thing that is specifically and simply spelled out in the Ten Commandments (of all things)… Thou Shall Not Kill. yet all kinds of Christian sects think killing is OK, if it’s in war, in self-defense, as punishment for other capitol crimes, or if you’re taking out an abortionist before he kills again (defense of the unborn, I guess).

    ok, I just realized my family-abandonment question above was wrong because leaving in that situation would probably be morally-positive, not morally ambiguous. how about this — if your family is taken care of financially, is being raised spiritually by your significant other, and you’re a morally ambivalent not-at-all influencial part of this household, wouldn’t it be morally ambivalent if you left? you contributed nothing before (without really taking anything away from them), so when you’re gone it would be virtually the same. no?

  14. It is actually “thou shalt not murder”– and murder is in all circumstances wrong. Killing an abortionist is never ok, it is the old adage of two wrongs and all that.

    Please read again what I said about leaving your family. Straw man anyone?

  15. this is exactly what you said about leaving your family: “There are some things which are absolutes. It would not be a moral to leave your husband/wife and family for another family. There is no question there, you know?”

    So you claimed it would NOT be AMORAL [I’m assuming when you wrote ‘a moral’ you meant amoral];
    meaning it would NOT be “without moral quality”;
    meaning it WOULD have a moral quality, either positive or negative. You gave this as an example of an absolute — so is it always bad or always good? Or were you were arguing that this act is always never in the middle (it’s always either bad or good)? I’ll agree that in the majority of cases this is probably not a grey area, but honestly, I think my example of the rare minority case of amorally leaving your family is still valid.

    I’m not claiming there are no moral absolutes — I’m not invoking a straw man to refute that, but my example does refute your specific argument that leaving one’s family IS a moral absolute.

  16. Ok, let’s go about this from another angle (one which is more in line with my typing skills ;)). It would be wrong for you to leave your family for another family. Absolutely.
    If your family committed their lives to Satan, then you should leave that family but not start a new one. Why? Because it would indicate that being the head of a family is not your calling (in that extreme case).

  17. wait, is not each family member their own person, responsible for making their own life decisions? if the rest of your family makes bad decisions, does this reflect poorly on you as a member of that family?

    who ever said the person leaving is the head of the family? in your initial example, you said he/she.

    and even if it was me, as the husband and father, you think I shouldn’t be able to start another family? nice.

    why don’t you take a look at all the people, families, etc that are the results of broken marriages — still ready to lay down blanket statements like that?

  18. “two wrongs doesn’t make a right” was never in the Bible.

  19. and no, “turn the other cheek” is not the same thing… not even close.