Highway Road Signs: The State, Public Morality, and Natural Law

This morning the Nashville area was blanketed with a dusting of snow, which, for Nashville, means the entire city is in chaos, especially its freeway commuters.

While driving into work this morning, there was a large highway road sign illuminated across the highway with the message: “Snow & Ice: Slow Down & Be Safe.”

That got me thinking about the subtly of the state’s involvement with public morality and natural law.

Telling passengers to slow down in an ice and snow storm is an attempt to convey a message with a moral meaning. It isn’t a statement of preference or condition. Rather, it was an imperative. You “ought” to do advisable “X” in order that desired “Y” be the outcome.

That this message was broadcasted publicly where thousands of drivers saw it indicates all the more how such a message was an exercise in public morality. People en masse were the recipients of this message, meaning that for such a safe state of affairs to be realized, it will have to be followed by the multitudes. A single person who sees themselves as an exception to this rule and who purposefully drives too fast in order to harm those around him or her, shows how one moral infraction can bring great harm to a large number of people. The common good is at stake in people agreeing to follow moral principles.

And, finally, that this message is built on the simple natural law principle of the Rule of Consequences, it shows why the state has a vested interest in speaking a common moral language with principles that everyone understands. The State of Tennessee is sending a very clear moral message: Harming yourself and others is a bad outcome. To prevent such an outcome, drivers are encouraged to slow down and be mindful of their speed in order to bring about a situation where as few people as possible are harmed. This is natural law, pure and simple. People ought to desire not to harm themselves and harm others. Therefore, to not harm others (which is a bad state of affairs), people should drive cautiously.

I write this little post as an exercise in the reasonableness of moral claims made by the state. Now, a message encouraging drivers to slow down doesn’t give the state license to put every moral claim on a highway sign, but it does give legitimacy to the state’s interest in conveying moral expectations. It also raises a question of prudence: What moral claims does the government have legitimate interest in trying to teach? Should there be signs or mailers to each household that says, “Adultery is bad for men, women, and children, therefore, don’t commit adultery”? I don’t have an answer to this question. Rather, this simple exercise raises the important question of what principles are at stake when discussing public morality and the state.
People often say, “The government can’t legislate morality.” It’s one of the most tired and thoughtless tropes people use to excuse a laissez-faire approach to morality. But no one really believes it. Because they can’t believe it. Morality isn’t an abstract principle—it involves people. Persons are individuals in community and communities are comprised of individuals. Morality means that we’re all in this together, trying to join around moral principles that enough people can agree to in order to promote the best moral ecology. Tennessee’s roadsigns are but a simple example of the why the state has an interest in promoting morality: To protect its citizens and to encourage human flourishing.