Morality and rule systems in aviation laws and regulation.

[PeterNSteinmetz]

This is a continuation of a sub-thread of https://flyersforum.org/threads/whe...ry-for-aviation-safety.3508/page-2#post-11765

My take is that morals are what a society, a culture, a religion, etc. wants of a person. Except that each society, or each culture, or each religion, etc. can have a different moral standard for the exact same topic or ideal. I prefer to use my personal values as a guide through life which happens to put a premium on objective standards that cross all moral boundaries.

I think this is a distinction mentioned here https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/ . I am using the term in its normative sense whereas you are using in the descriptive sense. While we could use the term "morality" in the descriptive sense for this discussion, since the original thread and this thead have to do with normative topics, I suspect the normative use will be easier. If you object to that, I guess we could just always use the more specific terms 'normative morality' and 'descriptive morality'.

From the perspective of morality (or normative morality) we can examine the example you mentioned earlier in post https://flyersforum.org/threads/when-is-criminal-law-necessary-for-aviation-safety.3508/post-11749 which I have called previously example 2. It does not involve 'Bubba' but the issue of owner maintenance.

So let's consider that example. What has the owner done morally wrong (in the normative sense)? It seems clear the owner has violated regulations as noted. Thus he has violated the objective standards stated in those.

 

[rotorwrench]

What has the owner done morally wrong (in the normative sense)? It seems clear the owner has violated regulations as noted. Thus he has violated the objective standards stated in those.

But if we follow the guidance from your link on normative morality, what if the owner rationally believed what he had done in that specific condition was morally correct even though he did violate the regulation?

While the use of a single owner above does not meet the norm moral condition of “all rational persons” that same guidance also states there is no single moral conduct that covers all situations.

So given there is a substantial group of aircraft owners who morally believe that various FARs do not apply to them, I think that would qualify as “all rational persons within that group” and be acceptable for this example.

Even the mention of a 3rd moral condition in the guidance, that a norm moral person would “endorse it”, I find this also true as that group of norm moral owners typically discuss this type of defiance publicly amongst themselves and with select others.

The quandary: we have two separate groups of aircraft owners: one group morally follows the FARs and one group morally does not follow the FARs. Who is morally correct?

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

But if we follow the guidance from your link on normative morality, what if the owner rationally believed what he had done in that specific condition was morally correct even though he did violate the regulation?

That is a good question and I would say central to the issue here. And I will note that how to treat such a person is a moral question that one has to address.

The quandary: we have two separate groups of aircraft owners: one group morally follows the FARs and one group morally does not follow the FARs. Who is morally correct?

I think this reflects a struggle with moral relativism, more specifically meta-ethical moral relativism. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-relativism/ I think that one has to decide where one stands on that issue in order to understand how people parse the issue of what to do about regulations and the people breaking them. I propose deferring that for the moment in the abstract and considering this example some more.

Whatever we may think abstractly about the issue, I note that if one is going to do anything at all about a regulatory violation then the actor must make a moral decision about the appropriate response.

Let’s consider a somewhat abstracted view of what to do with this recalcitrant owner. That often will illustrate the various issues that need to be considered.

So if you were in charge of policing someone like this at the local airport, and had exhausted all attempts at persuasion, told them they need to pay money and they don’t do it, told them they need to give you the airplane and they don’t do it, told them they need to spend some time in a cage to consider this and they won’t go in, try to manhandle them in and they resist as peacefully as possible - do you then feel it morally appropriate to shoot and kill them? That certainly stops them from continuing to violate the regulation.

 

[rotorwrench]

[...] told them they need to spend some time in a cage prison cell to consider this and they won’t go in, try to manhandle them in and they resist as peacefully as possible -

FTFY. But I think that’s a bit too abstract. You’re good up till the point above. But all moral decisions have some sort of rational or societal values associated with them. Once that owner starts to act irrationally to those values, the moral thing for me to do is to protect that owner from themselves whether that be in a prison cell or a padded room.

So once that is achieved, the final act of shooting the owner to stop their behavior becomes morally moot. Now if that owner alters his “peaceful” disposition and resorts to physical violence or deadly force, then from a moral standpoint that violent owner is morally responsible for those repercussions and not me.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

FTFY. But I think that’s a bit too abstract. You’re good up till the point above. But all moral decisions have some sort of rational or societal values associated with them. Once that owner starts to act irrationally to those values, the moral thing for me to do is to protect that owner from themselves whether that be in a prison cell or a padded room.

This is where I think the examples even if abstract help clarify the issues.

That is a very different position than I would take. So it is not at all surprising that we would reach different conclusions about something as derived as aviation regulations. We are starting from rather different moral bases.

But I would like to understand your position on this a bit more.

So where do these “societal values” come from? How are they derived?

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

I suppose I should add a bit of how I would parse this. I would start by asking whether someone else is being aggressed against. If the owner is not aggressing against anyone, I would say leave him alone, even if he is going completely against what anyone else would do or value or think rational.

That may not literally be the case in this example, because he may be subjecting others who have not chosen to deal with him to possible risks of harm. In that case, I would say one needs to first know whether the risk rises above those of ordinary living. If not, then again, leave him alone.

For people that choose to deal with him, they chose to do so and any risk is on them, so long as the owner has not defrauded anyone about those risks.

 

[rotorwrench]

So where do these “societal values” come from? How are they derived?

How do you personally determine your actions and thoughts are moral?

If the owner is not aggressing against anyone, I would say leave him alone, even if he is going completely against what anyone else would do or value or think rational.

So you believe there is no "crime" or "offense" unless there is a victim?

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

It has not been my intention in this thread to debate particular moral theories, but rather to explore how different moral positions impact judgements about what sort of aviation laws and regulations should exist.

One of the reasons I tend to avoid such discussion on social media is that many people base their morality on either deep emotions that are not well thought out or on various forms of mysticism. As such, they are not really rationally debatable in many cases, though they can be interesting to discuss and think about.

Nonetheless, so as not to be obtuse, I will answer these questions and then hopefully we can explore the differences in terms of implications for aviation law and regulations.

How do you personally determine your actions and thoughts are moral?

Like many people I have a moral theory and try to be consistent with it. In my case I think the only appropriate universal standard of value for people is their own life as a rationale thinking human being. So things that are for that are good and things that are against that are bad.

As a professional scientist and neuroscientist I tend to factor in the limits of our knowledge more than many do and regard many moral quandaries as a consequence of assuming more knowledge than we have.

So you believe there is no "crime" or "offense" unless there is a victim?

Pretty close to that, though I think that subjecting other innocent people to a reasonably certain likely serious harm is also an aggression against them and a crime in that sense. Even if the actual harm is prevented by quick action.

Would you care to extend what that sort of theory would imply in example 2?

 

[rotorwrench]

It has not been my intention in this thread to debate particular moral theories, but rather to explore how different moral positions impact judgements about what sort of aviation laws and regulations should exist.

Except without some sort of common denominator what’s the point of the debate? I believe it’s very important for both parties to have a basic understanding of each other’s core beliefs for a debate to be worthwhile. Otherwise, the debate is nothing more than a huge "gray area" with one side debating black and the other side white.

In my case I think the only appropriate universal standard of value for people is their own life as a rationale thinking human being.

And this is my point from above. When you look at the comparative difference between values and morals, you'll find values come from an internal perception and morals come from an external perception. Several references below. [1] [2] [3]

My take, based on your highlighted words, is we are actually debating this topic based on our core personal values and not a moral-based debate which is different in my view and which I stated initially.

“To sum it up, values are the core beliefs that guide our personal choices and aspirations, while morals are the principles that guide our actions in relation to others and society as a whole.”

“Values represent an individual's beliefs and the principles that drive their behavior. […] Morals, on the other hand, are the societal norms that dictate what is considered right and wrong within a community.”

As a professional scientist and neuroscientist I tend to factor in the limits of our knowledge more than many do and regard many moral quandaries as a consequence of assuming more knowledge than we have.

To me, knowledge is everything. But so is the objective truth. Where I find the most quandaries, is when a person uses subjective opinion with limited knowledge vs using objectivity based on established standards. In aviation, a prime example is the determination of airworthy.

By definition, airworthy contains both an objective part and a subjective part. So where do all the quandaries happen? Not with the objective part: “aircraft conforms to its type design,” but with the subjective part: " and is in a condition for safe operation."

Pretty close to that,

So cannot society be a victim also in your view? Especially when a person violates duly enacted societal laws and rules to manage and protect the fabric of that society? That said, is it not true that within each society there are multiple communities, each with their own set of laws and rules?

To bring it back around, in the aviation community, each aircraft owner has established responsibilities in relation to this community's laws and rules. And those rules are designed to manage and protect the fabric of this community.

So when an owner’s values do not agree with the community’s rules, is it your belief that instead of being objective and gaining the necessary knowledge to address the quandary, the owner decides his values-based, subjective opinion is all that matters and F the community rules?

For example, as a C150 owner, say you believe the Standard AWC Block 6 requirement is a regulatory overreach and you make the decision to change things. So which way will your personal values direct you?

Do you objectively decide to change your aircraft's category to a Special AWC, which will remove all the rules you personally detest, and keep you in compliance with the community rules? Or, do you subjectively decide screw the community allowing undocumented mx to be performed which puts yourself in violation of the rules and subject to the community’s penalties and punishments?

So, if you pick the latter values-based route, how do you square that morally since it was your decision to take the path of non-compliance when there was a societal “morally correct” route available?

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

Except without some sort of common denominator what’s the point of the debate? I believe it’s very important for both parties to have a basic understanding of each other’s core beliefs for a debate to be worthwhile. Otherwise, the debate is nothing more than a huge "gray area" with one side debating black and the other side white.

It's funny - that is exactly the analogy I often use in describing these things! The parties endlessly debate black versus white while the real answer is 67% gray.

I am in complete agreement with you on understanding the underpinnings and assumptions. Though I think sometimes the answer has to be that one party or the other or both hold non-falsifiable beliefs. So it is good to understand what those are in any case to see where they lead, but the differences will never be resolved by rationale discussion.

You bring up a lot of good points so this response will be a bit long...

And this is my point from above. When you look at the comparative difference between values and morals, you'll find values come from an internal perception and morals come from an external perception. Several references below. [1] [2] [3]

As before based on the philosophical definitions I would not say those are the only possible divisions. Indeed I think some of that sort of definition is assuming moral relativism, and in a sense begging the question.

I will expand a bit more on what I said in the prior post as that was of course just a précis. I think there are a common set of shared values that all human beings share if they value their own lives as rationale thinking human beings. Those form the basis of an objective morality.

Of course we all hold a large number of other values which are not part of that set. Also, I guess if a person wants to live as an animal rather than as a rational human being they would not share that set of values.

My take, based on your highlighted words, is we are actually debating this topic based on our core personal values and not a moral-based debate which is different in my view and which I stated initially.
...
“To sum it up, values are the core beliefs that guide our personal choices and aspirations, while morals are the principles that guide our actions in relation to others and society as a whole.”

I guess I would largely agree and argue that there is a core set of values that all humans share if they value their lives as rational thinking human beings. I believe the alternative, generally speaking, is the position of moral relativism, in one form or another.

So it strikes me the primary difference here is that your position is that there is only moral relativism whereas mine is that there is objective morality.

I don't think we necessarily have to agree on this point to have an interesting discussion so long as we are clear on the assumptions. Obviously exploring such a difference is a very interesting philosophical question, though also quite abstract and lengthy.

To me, knowledge is everything. But so is the objective truth. Where I find the most quandaries, is when a person uses subjective opinion with limited knowledge vs using objectivity based on established standards. In aviation, a prime example is the determination of airworthy.

By definition, airworthy contains both an objective part and a subjective part. So where do all the quandaries happen? Not with the objective part: “aircraft conforms to its type design,” but with the subjective part: " and is in a condition for safe operation."

Good point!

So cannot society be a victim also in your view? Especially when a person violates duly enacted societal laws and rules to manage and protect the fabric of that society? That said, is it not true that within each society there are multiple communities, each with their own set of laws and rules?

In brief, no. "Society" is not a living thinking entity and certainly cannot hold values. It is simply a collection of individuals. Those individuals may share certain values, rules, etc. Each of them may be damaged or harmed in some way and be a victim, but I think it is a category error to attribute a harm to "society" per se.

So when an owner’s values do not agree with the community’s rules, is it your belief that instead of being objective and gaining the necessary knowledge to address the quandary, the owner decides his values-based, subjective opinion is all that matters and F the community rules?

I want to make one preliminary item very clear here since you are starting to ask my personal opinion specifically about aviation rules, regulations, and related actions.

What I am discussing here is my view of what would be best in an ideal world. However, I have not only a theoretical interest but also a practical interest as I am a pilot. I fly for a hobby and that has always been my goal. So after starting my flight training and seeing how highly regulated flying is I made a deliberate practical decision that I was not going to be taking any actions to challenge these regulations in any way. So when flying, I try to assiduously follow all rules and regulations and best safety practices. And when instructing I teach strictly to the rules and regulations, whatever my opinion of those might be. Good to have that out of the way so there is no confusion about my safety practices as a pilot or instructor.

Thus I would always advise an owner that you need to follow these rules and regulations. Mostly for your safety and the safety of others, but also just from a practical perspective. I would strongly discourage any thought of acting with such an attitude.

For example, as a C150 owner, say you believe the Standard AWC Block 6 requirement is a regulatory overreach and you make the decision to change things. So which way will your personal values direct you?

As above, I just follow the rules and regulations exactly to the best of my ability with respect to any aircraft which I own, fly, or teach in. That of course doesn't stop me from speaking out in other fora about how I think those rules should be changed or are unnecessary or ill-founded. Does that make sense?

Do you objectively decide to change your aircraft's category to a Special AWC, which will remove all the rules you personally detest, and keep you in compliance with the community rules? Or, do you subjectively decide screw the community allowing undocumented mx to be performed which puts yourself in violation of the rules and subject to the community’s penalties and punishments?

So, if you pick the latter values-based route, how do you square that morally since it was your decision to take the path of non-compliance when there was a societal “morally correct” route available?

It is good that Special AWC route is now available and I think that people who really detest the rules would be well advised to go that route. While my mechanic has often suggested this route and I have many friends that have chosen it, my wife actually prefers that I stick to certificated aircraft!

I think that to the extent that ignoring the rules constitutes an actual risk of real harm to others who have not chosen to assume that risk, it is objectively morally wrong and should constitute a crime if the risk level is much above the risks of daily living.

OTOH, if the rules are about things which do not constitute a substantial objective risk to innocent third parties, then I think that trying to enforce them using the force of government is the moral wrong.

There will of course be many cases that are not clearly one or the other and our certainty level is low. In those cases I reserve moral judgement.

Now some may wonder if my position to always follow the rules and regulations even if I think enforcing them is morally wrong is itself a moral wrong. My own reasoning is that it is not since my actions in complying primarily impose a burden on me and not others. If I see someone doing something which is both a violation of the rules and regulations and would endanger safety, I guess I am willing to take steps to try and encourage or force conformance. In such a case, that would usually start with a question or a gentle reminder. If I saw something that constituted an acute serious risk, I would of course take appropriate action to try and halt the danger.

Good discussion by the way @rotorwrench. I appreciate your civil and actually friendly manner.

 

[rotorwrench]

Each of them may be damaged or harmed in some way and be a victim, but I think it is a category error to attribute a harm to "society" per se.

In practice I’ve found the opposite to true especially in the aviation community. Have seen a single person’s violation of a rule affect the entire community whether they were directly or indirectly involved by a single AD note. In my book, they are collectively a victim, ie., the community or society on a grander scale.

And the same can also be said how the rules are enacted as they are applied at the community level and not the individual level. For example, when there is no community level risk, like a single seat aircraft, the number of rules governing those type aircraft are reduced when only a single person is at risk.

Does that make sense?

Yes. And that is a similar path I follow as well.

OTOH, if the rules are about things which do not constitute a substantial objective risk to innocent third parties, then I think that trying to enforce them using the force of government is the moral wrong.

If not the government, who else would you use to enforce them? Examples?

If I see someone doing something which is both a violation of the rules and regulations and would endanger safety, I guess I am willing to take steps to try and encourage or force conformance.

Curious. To use a generic example, an owner performs un-documented maintenance on their aircraft even after a concerned someone's numerous “gentle reminders. What action would you expect that person should take against the owner? And what action should someone take with that same knowledge, however, once arriving at the airport that someone learns his best friend was flying the pattern with this owner in his aircraft?

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

In practice I’ve found the opposite to true especially in the aviation community. Have seen a single person’s violation of a rule affect the entire community whether they were directly or indirectly involved by a single AD note. In my book, they are collectively a victim, ie., the community or society on a grander scale.

I do understand that certainly there can be groups of individuals that are a victims of a single act. But maintaining that somehow this gives them extra rights or moral standing to address the issue is a category error. I would agree that when determining the magnitude of the harm that one is considering, that should be multiplied by the number of people involved. I suppose this might just raise the product of the likelihood of harm times the magnitude above a threshold for a forceful response to prevent it, given a high certainty.

In terms of the harms you have seen to whole groups, was this a natural product of the cause, or because a government agent decided to punish everyone? Sort of like the junior high school physical education teacher making the whole class do push ups because one kid screwed up.

And the same can also be said how the rules are enacted as they are applied at the community level and not the individual level. For example, when there is no community level risk, like a single seat aircraft, the number of rules governing those type aircraft are reduced when only a single person is at risk.

That is a good thing and I think fits in with the idea of multiplying by the number of people involved. I believe that formulation avoids fuzzy thinking about what the rights of redress of a group are.

If not the government, who else would you use to enforce them? Examples?

Good question. We are talking here about rules which per hypothesis do not give rise to a likely significant harm to innocent people with high certainty. I would suggest that who enforces those kind of rules is up to the individuals involved. They have chosen to associate and so can judge these things for themselves. No need for government force right up front.

An example would be an airline which wants to prohibit the use of laptop computers while in flight. If the airline wants to do that they can be clear about their rules and then people can choose whether they wish to do business with such an airline. If a passenger agrees and then breaks the rule, they are breaching their contract and that can be dealt with by the normal means.

Curious. To use a generic example, an owner performs un-documented maintenance on their aircraft even after a concerned someone's numerous “gentle reminders. What action would you expect that person should take against the owner? And what action should someone take with that same knowledge, however, once arriving at the airport that someone learns his best friend was flying the pattern with this owner in his aircraft?

In my ideal world it would depend on whether the un-documented maintenance raised a "likely significant harm to innocent people with high certainty". In my view, and this is returning to the thread whence this one arose, if it does, that is the sort of thing where it may be appropriate to use government force. So I would then say they should be reported to the authorities for further action.

OTOH, if it does not raise that sort of likely significant harm, I guess I would certainly let my friend know of the trouble and the possible risk, but would likely leave it at that.

Personally, for my airplane in the real world, I always insist on appropriate documentation. Rarely I have mechanics suggest otherwise and I have always told them "no thanks, let's do it by the book."

 

[rotorwrench]

In terms of the harms you have seen to whole groups, was this a natural product of the cause, or because a government agent decided to punish everyone?

Part of the cause. For example, take the recent TCM circlip issue. The cause was one person did not install “some” crankshaft circlips in the proper way and those shafts made it out into the industry.
The issue was it was unknown where all those shafts ended up. So an AD was issued to capture all the known shaft locations and any unknown locations. Unfortunately, the AD affected 1000s of owners to cover all unknown locations.

Good question. We are talking here about rules which per hypothesis do not give rise to a likely significant harm to innocent people with high certainty. I would suggest that who enforces those kind of rules is up to the individuals involved. They have chosen to associate and so can judge these things for themselves. No need for government force right up front.

Except it depends on how you define the “hypothesis.” Everyday those “involved individuals” prove by example they are unable to provide an equal level of FAA oversight and enforcement as required by the established rules. So I still don’t quite follow how you come to that conclusion.

Take your average passenger’s level of knowledge and emotional connection to the aviation industry. For example, after the Boeing Max lost a door plug in flight, most of the flying public “emotionally” altered their flying plans to exclude all Max aircraft. However, if this flying public had a smidgen of knowledge how the aviation industry works, they would have found this was quite the wrong approach.

And with your laptop example, what average passenger would have the knowledge that using the laptop in certain flight phases could potentially render the aircraft uncontrollable at the wrong time? Or to ongoing concerns on the cybersecurity of newer aircraft systems and components?

Regardless, its been proven throughout aviation history that allowing aircraft owner/operators and passengers to self-govern themselves has been the core reason why we have the FAA and the aviation laws/rules we use today.

In my ideal world it would depend on whether the un-documented maintenance raised a "likely significant harm to innocent people with high certainty".

Agree. But again, that would depend on your definition of “significant harm.” From my point of view in the real world, the minute an owner performs an un-documented maintenance task it now “significantly harms” the “innocent” mechanic who previously worked in the same area as the undocumented mx or the innocent IA who signed the last annual or any future innocent buyer who bought the aircraft under false pretenses it was airworthy. And the level of certainty is well above high.

As I’ve noted in the past, the aviation system is a closed system that requires each person to follow the appropriate rules to ensure the integrity of that system. And especially the owner as he is held ultimately responsible for everyone else. Thankfully, most owner undocumented work does not result in a body count or serious injury.

However, these same owner actions have left a trail of unairworthy aircraft sold as airworthy, outright damaged aircraft, and mechanic certificate enforcement actions because the owner didn’t “morally” follow the rules. And in my experience its only gotten worse.

For example, during covid when the used Part 91 aircraft market exploded, I assisted an old broker friend who was in a bind. His mechanic was down with covid and he had a large number of aircraft to work through. All said and done, 30-40% of the aircraft I looked at were junk but were offered as “morally” airworthy by their owners.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

Except it depends on how you define the “hypothesis.” Everyday those “involved individuals” prove by example they are unable to provide an equal level of FAA oversight and enforcement as required by the established rules. So I still don’t quite follow how you come to that conclusion.

The hypothesis in this case was stated thusly -

OTOH, if the rules are about things which do not constitute a substantial objective risk to innocent third parties, then I think that trying to enforce them using the force of government is the moral wrong.

Take your average passenger’s level of knowledge and emotional connection to the aviation industry.

Passengers who have chosen to fly on a commercial airliner are not innocent 3rd parties in this sense. They chose to associate with airline and so any risks they thereby assumed are on them.

Regardless, its been proven throughout aviation history that allowing aircraft owner/operators and passengers to self-govern themselves has been the core reason why we have the FAA and the aviation laws/rules we use today.

That doesn’t really argue for the morality of it, does it?

But again, that would depend on your definition of “significant harm.” From my point of view in the real world, the minute an owner performs an un-documented maintenance task it now “significantly harms” the “innocent” mechanic who previously worked in the same area as the undocumented mx or the innocent IA who signed the last annual or any future innocent buyer who bought the aircraft under false pretenses it was airworthy. And the level of certainty is well above high.

What I mean is damage to property or injury. And these people are not the sort of innocent 3rd parties I mean. They chose to work in the industry. As an additional point, all of the supposed “damage” is caused by the actions of the government in enforcing these regulations. Thus this is sort of circular when discussing the morality of such regulations in the first place.

Thankfully, most owner undocumented work does not result in a body count or serious injury.

Yes, exactly the point. And even much more rarely to innocent third parties.

However, these same owner actions have left a trail of unairworthy aircraft sold as airworthy, outright damaged aircraft, and mechanic certificate enforcement actions because the owner didn’t “morally” follow the rules. And in my experience it’s only gotten worse.

Perhaps. And in those cases it sounds like the owner got what they deserved quite naturally. If the rules are not moral, then there is nothing immoral about failing to follow them. It might be unwise, but not immoral.

For example, during covid when the used Part 91 aircraft market exploded, I assisted an old broker friend who was in a bind. His mechanic was down with covid and he had a large number of aircraft to work through. All said and done, 30-40% of the aircraft I looked at were junk but were offered as “morally” airworthy by their owners.

Sounds to me like cases of fraud, which are illegal and immoral with or without the regulations in my view.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

Please allow me to summarize what I understand your view of the morality of these rules and regulations. Please correct me where I am mistake.

Different groups of people have different views on morality and specifically the morality of various actions in aviation.

In order to bring some order to this situation, it is moral for one group in a geographic region to decide on the moral status of these actions and codify them in laws and regulations.

Once so established it is wrong for anyone to violate these rules and regulations.

If needed to ensure compliance with these rules and regulations, it is acceptable for this group to use physical force.

 

[rotorwrench]

Please allow me to summarize what I understand your view of the morality of these rules and regulations. Please correct me where I am mistake.

FWIW: it appears we look at the topic of morals and values much differently: you appear to follow a theoretical approach and I a realistic approach.

It also appears your approach is somewhat narrow in scope. For example, you limit your definition of “significant harm” to only property damage or personal. Is not financial damage or reputational damage equally as morally devastating to a person in the real world?

Regardless, as I mentioned much earlier, I hold objective truth and knowledge high on my list when discussing topics to include morals and values. So without more common ground between our respective views, we will continue to go in circles on the morality of aviation laws and rules as we are literally and figuratively on completely different planes…

Different groups of people have different views on morality and specifically the morality of various actions in aviation.

Yes.

In order to bring some order to this situation, it is moral socially mandated for one multiple groups in a geographic region at the national level to decide on the moral status of these actions and codify them in laws and regulations.

As revised, yes.

Once so established it is wrong for anyone to violate these rules and regulations.

Yes.

If needed to ensure compliance with these rules and regulations, it is acceptable for this collective group to use physical force. the prescribed penalty and punishment methods provided in those same codified aviation laws and rules

As revised, yes.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

FWIW: it appears we look at the topic of morals and values much differently: you appear to follow a theoretical approach and I a realistic approach.

…

Regardless, as I mentioned much earlier, I hold objective truth and knowledge high on my list when discussing topics to include morals and values. So without more common ground between our respective views, we will continue to go in circles on the morality of aviation laws and rules as we are literally and figuratively on completely different planes…

Largely I agree. I think there are a fair number of aviation items where we would likely agree, even coming from a different moral perspective. I will discuss some of those in the next post.

But really the only way to make progress in the places where disagreement remains would be to discuss the basis for these moral views.

For the sake of symmetry, I will lay out a similar summary of my own views:

As rational thinking living beings, all people have a right to defend themselves from other people initiating the use of force against them.

People when gathered together in a community may choose to act jointly based on these rights for effectiveness and efficiency in defending against such initiations of force.

In larger groups, it is best if the rules for doing so are codified as laws and regulations and administered in an objective manner.

It is critical in doing so that the group not become the initiator of force.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

For example, you limit your definition of “significant harm” to only property damage or personal. Is not financial damage or reputational damage equally as morally devastating to a person in the real world?

Perhaps it was unclear but I mean property to include any items of value which the individual owns, including financial instruments or even say the secret keys to a cryptocurrency (though it is a bit difficult for me to imagine how some aviation item would damage those).

So here are a few items where I suspect both our moral viewpoints would find them to be the sort of act to be criminalized in aviation:

Flying an airplane into someone’s house.
Representing that you are an aviation mechanic certified to a specific standard when you are not.
Selling an aircraft with known forged logbook entries.
Operating a commercial flying service for passengers where you mis-represent the safety or certification status of your aircraft.

The case of reputational damage is a bit harder to justify from my viewpoint, but likely depends on the details. From what you have mentioned previously I think you are imagining the following scenario: mechanic works on an aircraft doing everything properly. At some later time the owner makes changes to the aircraft improperly and fails to document them. At an even later time, these changes are discovered and the mechanic is held responsible by the FAA for violating regulations.

From my viewpoint it would depend partly on exactly how the discovery was made. Was it due to the owner explicitly making false claims and statements - even possibly those made during a sale? Or just by a ramp inspection?

I am assuming the mechanic suffers some damage from the FAA (certificate revocation or other punishment). In that case the FAA is certainly the one using force, directly or just a threat of it.

So it is a hard case to parse in my view. It has some similarities to the following - if someone points a gun at your head and orders you to kill some other party, or they will kill you, is it moral to kill the other person?

OTOH, from your moral viewpoint I agree it is much easier to parse. Owner failed to follow regulations and is guilty.

 

[rotorwrench]

So here are a few items where I suspect both our moral viewpoints would find them to be the sort of act to be criminalized in aviation:

Before I get to your other questions, there’s one point that needs a bit more common ground for us. Proper context and verbiage is paramount in a discussion. So I’ve realized that some of my rebuttals to your points may have been due to your definition of certain terms vs the context of our discussion.

For example, the use of “criminalized” above may mean one thing to you, but in the context of aviation violations less than 5% of all aviation violations reach the level being criminal. So while it may seem nitpick, the use of that word changes the context of that statement within this topic.

Since you have stated previously you enjoy “parsing the meaning of words and statements” I think it will serve us both to consider context in the selection of certain terms.

From what you have mentioned previously I think you are imagining the following scenario: [...]

Yes. This is a prime example on the results of owner undocumented maintenance. And one I have personal experience with.

The case of reputational damage is a bit harder to justify from my viewpoint, but likely depends on the details.

So you put no value on your reputation?

Curious. How do you select the mechanics that will work on your aircraft?

From my viewpoint it would depend partly on exactly how the discovery was made. Was it due to the owner explicitly making false claims and statements - even possibly those made during a sale? Or just by a ramp inspection?

Why? What would be the difference in the end result how the discovery was made?

I am assuming the mechanic suffers some damage from the FAA (certificate revocation or other punishment). In that case the FAA is certainly the one using force, directly or just a threat of it.

Here’s another out of context word: force. By definition, it implies “coercion or compulsion, especially with the use or threat of violence.” Yet if an FAA ASI used coercion against a mechanic, the ASI would be disciplined or even arrested for that action as it is spelled out in policy and law.

So in your example, given the FAA has the burden of proof to violate the mechanic, the FAA ASI would be an utter fool to use any “force” against a mechanic or pilot as it would give the mechanic an "automatic" win. Context matters.

So it is a hard case to parse in my view.

Why again? I find no “hard” issues at all. And having been in that same predicament myself with an out-of-state ASI on the phone questioning me, I’d be interested to know why it would be so hard for you parse this?

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

I was thinking that perhaps it is best to have some names for the two moral viewpoints we are discussing, rather than 'your' and 'my'.

I think my viewpoint as expressed in post #15 can be fairly described as 'libertarian'.

I would suggest that your viewpoint as expressed corrected in post #19 can be described as 'legal authoritative'. But if you prefer another name, please suggest it. As corrected it reads:

Different groups of people have different views on morality and specifically the morality of various actions in aviation.
In order to bring order to this situation, it is socially mandated for multiple groups at the national level to decide on the moral status of these actions and codify them in laws and regulations.
Once so established it is wrong for anyone to violate these rules and regulations.
If needed to ensure compliance with these rules and regulations, it is acceptable for this collective group to use the prescribed penalty and punishment methods provided in those same codified aviation laws and rules.