If we were only to consider the effects of the Caltrans’ decision in the short term, then I would have to say that they made the wrong decision. To take away a choice that most people have been able to make their entire lives is ethically wrong. But, the Caltrans believed they were making a correct long term choice, which I would agree with. Whether or not the good of the people was the first concern of the Caltrans’ the point of the decision was to benefit the commuter. The diamond lane had a primary purpose of encouraging people to commute together in carpools or buses. While the pubic did not agree with the idea, the theory behind it made sense. With less cars the freeway would become less congested and more efficient. The less cars …show more content…
The greater good is more important to protect for a few reasons. One of the most basic reasons for me arguing for the protecting side is the potentially harmful choices consumers could make. Another reason is that if you make choices for the greater good rather than personal freedoms more than likely you would affect the lives of those around you in a positive way. An unlikely example of the argument for the greater good comes from the auto industry. It is a rather new technology but self-driving cars are seen in some eyes as a necessity for the future. One can argue that it takes away from driving and that people should have a choice to drive. Others argue that it is shown that self-driving cars get into significantly less accidents than people driving. I argue that this should be a technology implemented as any way to reduce the number of injuries and deaths from any kind of activity would positively affect people for “the greater good.” While making choices is a natural part of life, when there is a chance to improve the life of everyone it should be taken