Yes, but it's not that simple. Being so drunk or high that you're not exactly you is a mitigating circumstance. This actually happened to me as recently as last Friday. I was so drunk that I wasn't myself to extent that I caused a big commotion which resulted in shouting and arguments and the police being called. Some of the people involved later tried to get revenge. I caught them and confronted them, and I apologised for my behaviour the other night, but emphasised that I was drunk out of my face, whereas they are both stone cold sober, and I could instantly see the shame on their faces when I said that. — S

Mitigating circumstances don't remove responsibility, they only make transgressions easier to understand, forgive, or not care about. Something seen as a small transgression is more likely to be forgiven.

Do you believe there to be some deep underlined psychological issues he maybe having? — Anaxagoras

I believe we all have deep, underlying psychological issues, but most of us function relatively well regardless, and many of us are able to gradually work through these issues without the need for a therapist - so long as we can be honest with ourselves without judgement.

It’s when we cannot trust ourselves that we place our trust in a significant other or a therapist - whose job, in my opinion, is to help us re-establish a pattern of integrity and honest interactions, rendering themselves unnecessary.

There is no indication here that her boyfriend has any underlying issues, but we don’t have the whole picture by any stretch. He’s just a normal bloke who appears to consciously work hard to respect his girlfriend in the bedroom and to maintain a sense of social decorum and respectability in public.

The relationship is in its early stages, so I would assume he’s not yet comfortable enough to let down his guard with her while sober, but I think his behaviour when drunk is a good indication of how he’d like to behave if he thought he could get away with it. I think she needs to be conscious of that as he begins to settle into the relationship and reveal the private thoughts and beliefs that govern his drunken behaviour - particularly in reference to their sexual relationship. They may not be toxic at all, but if she continues to pretend that his drunken persona is not connected to his sober one, then she may set up a pattern of denial and enabling that could cross over effortlessly into his sober behaviour.

This is the crippling effect of the age; to sit around discussing his behaviour, what it indicates, what it might be, who is he really, the mitigating circumstances, on and on. Yet if you went and spoke to someone staffing a women’s shelter, they would know what’s going on immediately and act.

To a hammer everything looks like a nail.

:up:

Oh yes, getting help was suggested. He would have benefitted from the help of an able psychotherapist. He did, apparently, overcome his problems enough to stay employed till his illness, a few years ago.

But this is now many years ago. He has since died (pancreatic cancer).

Mitigating circumstances don't remove responsibility, they only make transgressions easier to understand, forgive, or not care about. Something seen as a small transgression is more likely to be forgiven. — fdrake

They don't remove responsibility completely. I was agreeing with you and adding to or qualifying what you said. Responsibility is a thing of degree, it's not black and white.

Philosophically it sounds like you're asking after the nature of identity.

But I think your underlying question is: should I continue to see this man in a romantic way?

And for that question I wish to emphasize that only you can answer that question in the end. I know that you know that, but it's worth stating because these things are so very confusing.

Maybe it works out. Try it. Why not? You're only a few dates in. At the worst he shows himself a fraud and all his promises to drink less will show themselves easily enough after a month or two.

And if he changes then you'll know that by the fact that he follows your advice. If he doesn't -- and this is important to you of course -- you're in a different situation. Regardless of the question about personal identity you may decide, though it is painful right now, to move on.

Yeah, I have seen this.

. Being so drunk or high that you're not exactly you is a mitigating circumstance. — S

No it's not. You chose to drink knowing it would compromise your judgment, so you're fully responsible for the mess you created. I suppose if you really didn't know what drinking would do to you, you might have an excuse, but I suspect you've received both formal education in the dangers of alcohol and have learned by prior experience. It's all on you, unmitigated.

The law of the great state of Georgia:

O.C.G.A. 16-3-4 (2010)
16-3-4. Intoxication

(a) A person shall not be found guilty of a crime when, at the time of the act, omission, or negligence constituting the crime, the person, because of involuntary intoxication, did not have sufficient mental capacity to distinguish between right and wrong in relation to such act.

(b) Involuntary intoxication means intoxication caused by:

(1) Consumption of a substance through excusable ignorance; or

(2) The coercion, fraud, artifice, or contrivance of another person.

(c) Voluntary intoxication shall not be an excuse for any criminal act or omission.


It is for this reason that you cannot plead voluntary intoxication as an excuse for causing a motor vehicle collision, arguing that had you been your sober self, it'd have never happened, so there's no reason to prosecute you. That is to say, voluntary intoxication is an aggravating circumstance, not a mitigating one. You can't walk around with a blindfold and earplugs and go slamming into things and then argue that the real, fully aware you would never have done that. If there's a better you, then society should expect to deal with that person, not the voluntarily reckless one.

No it's not. You chose to drink knowing it would compromise your judgment, so you're fully responsible for the mess you created. I suppose if you really didn't know what drinking would do to you, you might have an excuse, but I suspect you've received both formal education in the dangers of alcohol and have learned by prior experience. It's all on you, unmitigated.

The law of the great state of Georgia:

O.C.G.A. 16-3-4 (2010)
16-3-4. Intoxication

(a) A person shall not be found guilty of a crime when, at the time of the act, omission, or negligence constituting the crime, the person, because of involuntary intoxication, did not have sufficient mental capacity to distinguish between right and wrong in relation to such act.

(b) Involuntary intoxication means intoxication caused by:

(1) Consumption of a substance through excusable ignorance; or

(2) The coercion, fraud, artifice, or contrivance of another person.

(c) Voluntary intoxication shall not be an excuse for any criminal act or omission.


It is for this reason that you cannot plead voluntary intoxication as an excuse for causing a motor vehicle collision, arguing that had you been your sober self, it'd have never happened, so there's no reason to prosecute you. That is to say, voluntary intoxication is an aggravating circumstance, not a mitigating one. You can't walk around with a blindfold and earplugs and go slamming into things and then argue that the real, fully aware you would never have done that. If there's a better you, then society should expect to deal with that person, not the voluntarily reckless one. — Hanover

Well, it is by my morality, Mr. Lawyer. Intentions and self-control matter as factors to consider when reaching a moral judgement, and when I consumed the alcohol, a) I didn't intend to cause trouble, and b) I wasn't in full control of myself when I was drunk. That in itself is sufficient in my judgement for some degree of leniency in moral judgement. Although I used a term familiar in law, I wasn't appealing to law, but rather making an ethical point. You often intervene in this way, and I find what the laws says on issues like this somewhat interesting, but it isn't always necessarily the standard upon which I base my moral judgement, and it isn't in this particular case.

when I consumed the alcohol, a) I didn't intend to cause trouble, and b) I wasn't in full control of myself when I was drunk. — S

I know why you wish to absolve yourself of guilt, but I'm simply pointing out that the law follows the same logic that I do and it isn't just some arbitrary announcement of a rule. The logic (and this would seem to apply for a moral theory as well) is that you are responsible for your recklessness, especially so if you intentionally engage in a reckless act. It applies in all sorts of situations. If I decide to drive my car 100 miles per hour in order to feel the rush that accompanies it, and I crash into a van full of children, killing every last one, I could say rather unconvincingly that I should be absolved of sin because (a) I didn't intend to cause trouble, and (b) I wasn't in full control of myself when the car hit 100 mph because it gets crazy hard to steer at that speed.

My lack of intent to cause trouble is somewhat offset by the fact that I engaged in an act that had fairly foreseeable negative consequences, despite the fact that usually I drive 100 mph without incident. Usually I just get that excited scared effect you feel when you think you're going to die, but somehow you don't. Usually I can sort of control my 100 mph hour car more or less, at least enough that I keep at least 2 wheels on the road. So, it would seem that I should be absolved of guilt don't you think?

I'm not suggesting that morality requires you become a teetotaler, but it does require you accept moral responsibility for all the bullshit you dole out, drunk or sober. You (or I) don't get to say "Sorry dude., I... (a) wrecked your car, (b) broke your lamp, (c) ate all your food, (d) punched you in the head, (e) slept with your girlfriend, (f) pissed on your floor... I was drunk" and expect the "I was drunk" part to matter.

@Hanover

Mostly agree, but -

(f) pissed on your floor — Hanover

I'd definitely be annoyed if my roommate got blackout drunk and mistook my closet for the bathroom. But if he made a sober decision to piss in my closet....Seems much worse, in a way.

I guess the difference is the first is an accident, the second would have to be a (particularly disturbing) intentional act of aggression.

Or, put another way. The first is an offense to me because it displays an certain level of indifference to me as a roommate (my roommate feels comfortable coming home stinking drunk to our apartment, with all the risks that entails, but wouldn't do the same at his parent's or grandmothers' etc.). But the second is as a greater offense to me, because it expresses active hostility.

But the second is as a greater offense to me, because it expresses active hostility. — csalisbury

Yes, that is true, the intent does matter. The intent to be reckless versus the intent to do actual harm does matter. In fact, the law respects as much, as it would be an entirely different crimes if (1) you killed someone in your car while sober and it was a complete accident , (2) you killed someone in you car while drunk and it was a complete accident, (3) in a fit of road rage, you intentionally slammed into someone with your car and killed them, and (4) you laid in wait for someone to exit their home so that you could mow them down.

The first is entirely involuntary manslaughter and the last is first degree intentional murder, killing in cold blood.

Back to floor pissing though. I do think that an intentional floor pissing is funnier in a way than the tired old drunken closet pissing that we've all heard of. Although I've never done it or seen it done, I like the unapologetic primal element of the intentional floor piss, where you use your urine to express your displeasure. It truly leaves nothing in doubt in terms of where you stand on things.

So, next time your roommate leaves his socks in the hallway and dirty dishes in the sink, which I suspect he does because that's what all roommates do, piss on the floor in his bedroom, leaving a yellowish bubbly puddle right before his bed. Nothing else need be said. He'll know clearly where things stand.

I agree, their drunken self is not their true self, although this doesn't mean that you need to stay with them. In my opinion you need to make it clear that he can't be getting wasted like this and that you need to come first.

I know why you wish to absolve yourself of guilt, but I'm simply pointing out that the law follows the same logic that I do and it isn't just some arbitrary announcement of a rule. The logic (and this would seem to apply for a moral theory as well) is that you are responsible for your recklessness, especially so if you intentionally engage in a reckless act. It applies in all sorts of situations. If I decide to drive my car 100 miles per hour in order to feel the rush that accompanies it, and I crash into a van full of children, killing every last one, I could say rather unconvincingly that I should be absolved of sin because (a) I didn't intend to cause trouble, and (b) I wasn't in full control of myself when the car hit 100 mph because it gets crazy hard to steer at that speed. — Hanover

But that doesn't seem to take into account what I've actually said at all. I never said that I'm not responsible. I think I've been clear enough that I accept responsibility to a reasonable degree, but not beyond.

My lack of intent to cause trouble is somewhat offset by the fact that I engaged in an act that had fairly foreseeable negative consequences, despite the fact that usually I drive 100 mph without incident. Usually I just get that excited scared effect you feel when you think you're going to die, but somehow you don't. Usually I can sort of control my 100 mph hour car more or less, at least enough that I keep at least 2 wheels on the road. So, it would seem that I should be absolved of guilt don't you think? — Hanover

Yes, again, that's consistent with what I said. It's offset by my understanding of the risks. Offset, not completely overruled. An offset is a consideration or amount that diminishes or balances the effect of an opposite one. A complete overruling is a complete rejection by exercising one's superior authority.

I'm not suggesting that morality requires you become a teetotaler, but it does require you accept moral responsibility for all the bullshit you dole out, drunk or sober. You (or I) don't get to say "Sorry dude., I... (a) wrecked your car, (b) broke your lamp, (c) ate all your food, (d) punched you in the head, (e) slept with your girlfriend, (f) pissed on your floor... I was drunk" and expect the "I was drunk" part to matter. — Hanover

Same problem. I don't get it. Have you actually read what I've said in this discussion, as opposed to jumping on a single comment? I've made several comments, and I think I've been very careful to qualify and clarify what I've said, so why do you seem to have this misunderstanding? I am certainly not looking to excuse myself, as though I am innocent and should not be judged, yet you seem to have decided that that's my stance. Even in the comment of mine which you originally quoted, I said that I apologised. That wouldn't make any sense if I didn't accept any moral responsibility.

I'm just saying that the circumstances are such that I am not completely at fault. That I should be excused to some degree. My actions aren't as condemnable as the same actions committed when sober. That's the bottom line. I knew it, and they knew it: the people who sought revenge (a premeditated act) when sober (in full mental capacity). Mine was not a premeditated act, it was an act of passion, and I was drunk, so not at full mental capacity.

Too many people too eager to shadow box here. "But you're responsible!", yes, to some extent.

So, next time your roommate leaves his socks in the hallway and dirty dishes in the sink, which I suspect he does because that's what all roommates do, piss on the floor in his bedroom, leaving a yellowish bubbly puddle right before his bed. Nothing else need be said. He'll know clearly where things stand. — Hanover

It's not a bad tactic. As it stands, he's delegated the role of expelling bodily fluids in my room to his cat, who sometimes pukes. Maybe I'll just start peeing on the cat.

Too many people too eager to shadow box here. "But you're responsible!", yes, to some extent. — S

Don't hate the haters. There's a certain joy in casting aspersion upon others.

The disagreement I suppose is in what we each mean by "to some extent." I probably am less tolerant of drunken behavior than others and not as willing to separate the Dr. Jekyll from the Mr. Hyde, especially if Dr. Jekyll knows that the drink will elicit the appearance of Mr. Hyde. My intolerance is probably the result of my age and experience I guess. I'm sort of over the stage where stumbling drunk is at all okay. At any rate, in your example, I doubt you were terribly irresponsible or dangerous, but more so just a danger to yourself in that you decided to test the tolerance of the police. They probably decided they had enough Ss at the station already and didn't need to cart another one down there, so you lived to see another day.

What I will say is that if this were an aberration, it's more excusable. If you tell us next Monday you've had yet another run in and then this becomes a pattern, I'd say you were worse than the person who intentionally stirred the pot from time to time. At least that person has some deliberation involved, as opposed to someone who knowingly gets themselves out of control and then has everyone around him having to deal with him for the hours it takes to sober up.

If I had a friend (doubtful) and he got really drunk and then told me to fuck off and whatever else, I'd place limited blame on his drunkenness and hold him pretty much fully responsible. In fact, I'd allow a greater excuse to the person who told me that he's been having a really bad day, got fired from work, broke up with his girlfriend, or whatever than someone who had just taken a drunken vacation from reality and went berserk.

Don't hate the haters. There's a certain joy in casting aspersion upon others.

The disagreement I suppose is in what we each mean by "to some extent." I probably am less tolerant of drunken behavior than others and not as willing to separate the Dr. Jekyll from the Mr. Hyde, especially if Dr. Jekyll knows that the drink will elicit the appearance of Mr. Hyde. My intolerance is probably the result of my age and experience I guess. I'm sort of over the stage where stumbling drunk is at all okay. At any rate, in your example, I doubt you were terribly irresponsible or dangerous, but more so just a danger to yourself in that you decided to test the tolerance of the police. They probably decided they had enough Ss at the station already and didn't need to cart another one down there, so you lived to see another day.

What I will say is that if this were an aberration, it's more excusable. If you tell us next Monday you've had yet another run in and then this becomes a pattern, I'd say you were worse than the person who intentionally stirred the pot from time to time. At least that person has some deliberation involved, as opposed to someone who knowingly gets themselves out of control and then has everyone around him having to deal with him for the hours it takes to sober up.

If I had a friend (doubtful) and he got really drunk and then told me to fuck off and whatever else, I'd place limited blame on his drunkenness and hold him pretty much fully responsible. In fact, I'd allow a greater excuse to the person who told me that he's been having a really bad day, got fired from work, broke up with his girlfriend, or whatever than someone who had just taken a drunken vacation from reality and went berserk. — Hanover

Sure, I'd be up for a drunken vacation from reality with you. Where are you taking us? I hear there's a good place this time of year just outside of my apartment in the early hours of the morning where you can be as noisy and disruptive as you like, without taking any responsibility for the fallout. We can be like Withnail and I. I'll be Withnail and you can be I.

To a hammer everything looks like a nail. — Possibility

Hammers don't have eyes. Have you been drinking?

...is a nail. Perhaps I have. :blush:

Well I've had a couple drinks tonight, and I say to you all - vice is moral. what about that

Well I've had a couple drinks tonight, and I say to you all - vice is moral. what about that

Well, I've had a couple drinks tonight, and I say to you all - vice is moral. What about that? — csalisbury

I like it. Kind of Nietzschean.

Nietzsche, free spirit, wouldnt have added a question mark

Nietzsche, free spirit, wouldn't have added a question mark. — csalisbury

:rofl:

Nietzsche, free spirit, probably didn't display OCD-like behaviour.