Last first: what does "right by default" mean? And why am I not right by default? — tim wood

It means right by default, and you're not right by default because that's just not how this works, unless perhaps you're a god.

I think alcohol sits on the border. Apparently responsible use is possible for most people, but not for some people. As to illegal so-called hard drugs, it appears it's really difficult to be a "responsible" user. For that, then, control, and the recognition that use of what cannot be controlled may not be, probably cannot be, moral. — tim wood

Your reply is far too lengthy. You know I have little toleration for that, except in exceptional cases, and I don't count your reply as one of those cases. The above point seems to be what it comes down to. I find it funny that you mentioned being objective earlier in the same reply, yet you end up basing your judgement on how it "appears" to you. That doesn't sound very objective to me.

And your point that what cannot be controlled may not be, probably cannot be, moral, just doesn't work, because it is far too vague, and still doesn't resolve the very same objection I made earlier: that control is a matter of degree, and you need to go into further detail to say anything meaningful on the matter. So, after all of that text, we're still back at square one. If I have a few pints, I will lose some control. So, should I never drink, or what? What about having a few pulls of a spliff?

My mistake replying to you, mere-s. You seem to take pride in being offensively useless at the expense of even the possibility of substance, a shame. But one can learn...

My mistake replying to you, mere-s. You seem to take pride in being offensively useless at the expense of even the possibility of substance, a shame. But one can learn... — tim wood

You don't like strong criticism, do you? You take it personally, and respond with name-calling and the like.

My original objection to your point about control was that it is met with the question of, "To what extent?". Whether you find my analysis offensive or otherwise, your closing point doesn't tell me anything meaningful, as in any practical guidance on the topic. Does it mean we should all stay completely sober, all of the time? What exactly does it mean? I guess we'll never really know if you won't clarify. And by clarify, I don't mean ramble on without actually addressing my objection. These are serious, unanswered questions: If I have a few pints, I will lose some control. So, should I never drink, or what? What about having a few pulls of a spliff? You need to actually break down and properly go in to detail about control.

You don't like strong criticism, do you? You take it personally, and respond with name-calling and the like. — S

What I do not like is non-responsiveness. I take this site as a place for the exchange of ideas, hopefully the lesser both appreciating and yielding to the better. But that requires participation in the exchange, in good faith and good spirit. But you: for example, I ask you what you mean by "right by default." How did you reply? You wrote, "It means right by default, and you're not right by default because that's just not how this works." A model of explication with zero substance. "By default" to me means "absent objection." It could also mean absent argument or consideration. It could mean other things as well. But you had no interest in supposing that someone who asked you for clarification might have had a reason for asking.

You represent my post as being "too lengthy." That doesn't stop you from telling me what my point seems to you to be, however, and pulling it apart on a clear misapprehension of the words I used. Apparently you did not grasp how personal and communal responsibility interpenetrate each other, as exemplified by the example of the helmets and the consequences of not wearing one..

What was your original objection? Here it is, "The obvious question in response to that would be: to what extent? Complete control in every situation where a recreational drug has been taken is both physically and practically impossible. To the extent that it accords with my sense of right and wrong, and personal responsibility, and my liberalism? I can try my best, and that's all you can justifiably expect of me."

Did I not reply to this? Here it is - from above: "Accordance with your personal sense of things, such that you do the best you can? I'd call that the price of admission. To play, however, requires - should require - an appropriate objective assessment of potential cost and who pays it - and certainly not in just a monetary sense."

Now you:

"My original objection to your point about control was that it is met with the question of, "To what extent?". Whether you find my analysis offensive or otherwise, your closing point doesn't tell me anything meaningful, as in any practical guidance on the topic. Does it mean we should all stay completely sober, all of the time? What exactly does it mean? I guess we'll never really know if you won't clarify. And by clarify, I don't mean ramble on without actually addressing my objection. These are serious, unanswered questions: If I have a few pints, I will lose some control. So, should I never drink, or what? What about having a few pulls of a spliff? You need to actually break down and properly go in to detail about control. — S

"To what extent." "Does it mean we should all stay completely sober all the time?" What did I write? "Apparently responsible use [of alcohol] is possible for most people, but not for some people." I guess you did not read that.

"You need to actually break down and properly go in to detail about control." Why do I have to? An understanding of the morality of drug use does not start with a prescription of so-many ounces per day or per week of beer. Indeed, that would short-circuit the whole idea of a morality, substituting for it an approved arithmetic of consumption. I guess you didn't appreciate my reference to Isle of Man motorcycle racing.

In sum, I value good criticism. Yours doesn't get out of the trench of invective and insult.

Why not start from the beginning: do you buy the notion that there is such a thing as ethics/morality? (Some folks argue the two terms mean the same thing.) Or not, meaning that any discussion of them is basically delusion, or at best error?

What I do not like is non-responsiveness. — tim wood

Then you should be more succinct and more on point. But instead you ramble and lose focus. I'm not going to address excessively lengthy posts in the same manner that I address a succinct post, and you should know that by now. It takes too much time and effort to analyse and respond to everything in a lengthy post. So if you don't want me to be "non-responsive", then stick to the key points, don't write an essay.

Then you should be more succinct and more on point. — S

Indeed, I should take this to heart, except that you rarely (never?) answer direct questions, as, for example, those at the end of my last post to you. I am forced to conclude that the topic of the thread, whatever thread you're in, is at best of tangential interest to you; that you're greater interest is personal display at the expense of both topic and substance.

Indeed, I should take this to heart, except that you rarely (never?) answer direct questions, as, for example, those at the end of my last post to you. I am force to conclude that the topic of the thread, whatever thread you're in, is at best of tangential interest to you; that you're greater interest is personal display at the expense of both topic and substance. — tim wood

Then I'll skip to that bit and answer them. That's not a problem. What's a problem for me is when you write several sentences for what I can write in a single sentence, with the result being that your post is several times as long.

Why not start from the beginning: do you buy the notion that there is such a thing as ethics/morality? (Some folks argue the two terms mean the same thing.) Or not, meaning that any discussion of them is basically delusion, or at best error? — tim wood

Really? That's your question? Of course I think that there's such a thing.

I had started to read through your post, but it's a chore. I just wanted a short, punchy answer. A focused and succinct reply. You said something about cost-benefit analysis, and cost to myself and others. That's the sort of key thing that is at risk of being missed or neglected if your post is too lengthy. Can't you just get straight to the point, and reserve lengthy elaboration as an 'upon request' sort of thing? I will let you know if I need a really detailed example about bike helmets.

Really? That's your question? Of course I think that there's such a thing — S

A la Socrates: one morality, that we're trying to figure out? Or many, each to his or her own?

A la Socrates: one morality, that we're trying to figure out? Or many, each to his or her own? — tim wood

I'm not going to play out a Socratic dialogue with you, and the topic is whether it is immoral to do illegal drugs.

I'm not going to play out a Socratic dialogue with you, and the topic is whether it is immoral to do illegal drugs. — S

I get the impression that you really dislike philosophy.

It's not immoral to drugs per, say. However, it is immoral to do certain acts that you don't normally do when your not high. Unless harming yourself is immoral, is it? :chin: I'm not sure.

I don't excuse my belligerence, I accept proportional responsibility, then I make light of it and move on, because otherwise it would eat me up inside and I would be at great risk of doing something even more self-destructive. — S

So you deny full responsibility to assuage your guilt so that you can feel better about yourself so that you can be a better person. Nice mental gymnastics. Does this method of self-affirmation work only for drug induced violent states or does it also work for intentional acts of violence? Can I shoot someone in the face and then deny full responsibility in order to unburden my conscience so that I can go out and be more productive?

Unless you're doing PCP or something, it isnt the drug. It's that the drug is lowering inhibition. Are there other members of your family who have issues with aggression?

I get the impression that you really dislike philosophy. — Merkwurdichliebe

Fascinating.

So you deny full responsibility to assuage your guilt so that you can feel better about yourself so that you can be a better person. Nice mental gymnastics. Does this method of self-affirmation work only for drug induced violent states or does it also work for intentional acts of violence? Can I shoot someone in the face and then deny full responsibility in order to unburden my conscience so that I can go out and be more productive? — Hanover

I deny full responsibility because I'm not fully responsible.

and the topic is whether it is immoral to do illegal drugs. — S

Great! The implication is that you know what morality and immorality are. Clearly one needs to know to determine the morality of taking illegal drugs. Tell us then please what you say morality is.

Great! The implication is that you know what morality and immorality are. Clearly one needs to know to determine the morality of taking illegal drugs. Tell us then please what you say morality is. — tim wood

The people of this forum never cease to amaze me. In a discussion on meta-ethics, people treat the topic as though it is a discussion on normative ethics, and in a discussion on normative ethics, people treat the topic as though it is a discussion on meta-ethics.

My meta-ethics is irrelevant. What's relevant is my judgement on whether or not taking illegal drugs is immoral.

You'd think people would educate themselves on a branch of philosophy before entering discussions within that branch of philosophy.

As expected, avoidance and zero substance. Did you notice I followed your lead? Short, succinct,simple direct posts, and it leads into a wall. Why are you so so toxic?

I deny full responsibility because I'm not fully responsible. — S

Ah but you are. Any philosopher - and any mature adult - knows that. I think you're talking about legal culpability - but who knows? Are you?

I deny full responsibility because I'm not fully responsible. — S

Alright, so let's say you got drunk and belligerent and punched a guy named Bob in the face. There are 100 percentage points of responsibility you can dole out. How many of those 100 points do you get? If not 100, who gets the rest?

Perhaps your punishment should be lessened due to the extent of your intent, but I can't see reducing your responsibility.

If your behavior was motivated by a high fever, it'd likely reduce or eliminate your responsibility, but I can't see voluntary intoxication as a viable defense.

Alright, so let's say you got drunk and belligerent and punched a guy named Bob in the face. There are 100 percentage points of responsibility you can dole out. How many of those 100 points do you get? If not 100, who gets the rest? — Hanover

It's not something that can be quantified, at least not precisely, and that's not something I need to do to support my point. And surely you recognise that your second question is a loaded question, so I'm definitely not answering that one. My point is just that I'm not fully responsible as a sober person would be, because I wasn't fully in control as a sober person would be. And even that doesn't take into account that sober people can still be categorised into more and less serious crimes based on whether the crime was premeditated or a crime of passion. Come on, you know the law better than I do. I don't base my morality on it to a T, but there's a rough template there for my reasoning on this. Basically, less control, less responsible. We've been over this already. What's the use of going over it again?

Perhaps your punishment should be lessened due to the extent of your intent, but I can't see reducing your responsibility. — Hanover

And we've already agreed to disagree over this.

If your behavior was motivated by a high fever, it'd likely reduce or eliminate your responsibility, but I can't see voluntary intoxication as a viable defense. — Hanover

For me, it's irrelevant whether or not it would stand up in a court of law, but obviously I consider it to be a justification for only partial responsibility.

Ah but you are. Any philosopher - and any mature adult - knows that. — tim wood

That's not an argument, that's just a condescending assertion, and an implicit attack on my character. I can't say I'm surprised to see this sort of response from you. I've come to expect it.

I think you're talking about legal culpability - but who knows? Are you? — tim wood

No, I was talking about responsibility in the context of ethics. I wasn't talking about legal anything there. That's a poor interpretation of what I was saying.

This is my subject. 11 years clean of meth barring two exceptions where I partook of an infinitesimally small amount. I befriended a homeless veteran, and he offered it to me out of love.

For 6 years I've been in CORE Group, Co-Occurring Recovery Education. The "co" is addiction and mental illness, dual diagnosis.

Only a part of groups for 6 years, at the same clinic for 11. So, for 6 years I noticed a disconnect between how the court saw me, and how the clinic treated me. I asked my psychiatrist, "How come the court holds me 100% responsible for my willed acts, but the clinic tells me like the climatic scene of Good Will Hunting, it's not your fault, it's not your fault, it's not your fault." He said, "It's a huge controversy."

It's ever changing. Here in Riverside CA the court is bowing to the sacred robes of the mental clinic who don't have the first bit of understanding about the mind.

I've done nothing wrong by objecting to your attempts to change the subject, and explaining why that's inappropriate. It's not my fault that you do not seem to have a good understanding of the distinction between ethics and meta-ethics. If you had a good understanding of that distinction, then we wouldn't be having this problem. You ought to take responsibility for that instead of taking it out on me. I'm not going to stop criticising people for doing things like this, irrespective of whether you get personal and resort to name-calling as you often do. I am not the sort of person who can be browbeaten into submission by being called toxic or by saying that I don't say anything of substance.

You want a continuation of the meta-ethical discussion from elsewhere on the forum, and I do not. Especially not here, where it's clearly inappropriate. And especially not by you role playing as Socrates, in an excruciating step-by-step run through of one of Plato's dialogues. I've given you more than enough on that topic already. There's over sixty pages of discussion. I suggest you go and review my many posts in that discussion, and that will probably answer most, if not all, of your questions.

it gets you off and helps you deal with life with a little bit of edge, what is immoral about that?

I'm not going to stop criticising people for doing things like this, — S

I get it, I really do. Had you been remotely clear anywhere, I'd have tried to work through it. But I have not found that post or those posts. And of the things you refer to, when I research them myself, I do not find that I can connect what I find with anything you write - and you're not interested in explanations. What I do find consistently in your posts is criticism in many forms. And I thank you for that word. It seems you think this is The Criticism Forum. But your criticism is destructive, not constructive. I'm certainly due my fair share of criticism - and more! But nothing destructive. And again you ignored a direct question.

As to the topic of this thread, if you have a viewpoint, it's so lost in your criticisms of others that I cannot find it. I think you think the illegal taking of drugs is not a moral matter, by which I mean there is no imperative barrier, no moral/ethical rule, that you're obliged to deal with. I guess you hold that the taking is just a matter of personal choice, independent of consequences of behaviours related to the taking.

I deny full responsibility because I'm not fully responsible. — S

Ah but you are. Any philosopher - and any mature adult - knows that.
— tim wood
That's not an argument, that's just a condescending assertion, and an implicit attack on my character. — S

Hmm. I started with the idea of arguing this. But what's the point? And I guess I've got to acknowledge that you simply are not responsible.

And again you ignored a direct question. — tim wood

Some questions don't dignify a response.

But your criticism is destructive, not constructive. — tim wood

Yes, there's nothing constructive in criticism which suggests the way to self-improvement through educating yourself about an important distinction in philosophy, and in learning the importance of staying on topic.

To get out of the political context of the question as many have been running around it here, it is immoral to do things that harms you as a being that can distinguish good from bad and those around you, period.

As we look around, usage of such substances is not out of two contexts, prescribed for a purpose and not prescribed which are for recreational purposes.

To me whatever drugs that we use are all for only one purpose and that is "not to be ourselves or normal". Now being normal is easy to explain and you can all picture it. But those who use it are in a sense not normal, even if they use it for recreational purposes. I would understand the pain of a sick person who is suffering to help them to ease the pain and that pain which is not normal can be cured for a while with such drugs...but those who are not sick and then they use it, to me they are much sicker than the ones that they are in hospitals or get them through a prescription for a legit reason.....

The ones who use it for recreational purposes, have lost the sense of humanity and something precious and that thy think that with such substances they will be able to get them back.....In reality all those who use alcohol even if its one drink have the same consequences as any other drugs. They are all chemicals and we use chemicals to ease the pain which is not there at all.... We as human beings have no pain unless we are injured or something really bad is happening inside us. Whatever else that we are in pain from is our own past and future which is not there at all in the first place. If we could have managed to let those two go then we wouldn't be talking about drugs or to use it not use it at all....