Every single time I have heard that said, it was in a circumstance where the speaker had gone to the trouble of making his business the business of other people. One example will suffice, and will illustrate all: the man beating the woman. Know what he said? You'll never guess. I'll simplify it and clean it up. "Mind your own business." Is that your none of your business?As for my responsibilities, what makes you think that that's even any of your business? — S
But why, exactly, did Portugal decriminalize drugs? — tim wood
decriminalization is not the same as legalization, yes? — tim wood
Second question: Do you think drugs are good for people? — tim wood
Every single time I have heard that said, it was in a circumstance where the speaker had gone to the trouble of making his business the business of other people. One example will suffice, and will illustrate all: the man beating the woman. Know what he said? You'll never guess. I'll simplify it and clean it up. "Mind your own business." Is that your none of your business? — tim wood
And you keep attributing to me an extremity of view I am not representing here. The question of the OP goes to in a sense the existence of the immorality in question. Is it? Or isn't it? You appear completely deaf to this question. Try the question I just asked Wallow just above - I'm betting you're clever enough to find it. Of course experience tells me you won't touch it with a ten foot pole. — tim wood
Yep. Almost a Bingo! And so consumption ought to be well-informed. And of course you're well-informed about the illegal drugs you take, right? But more than that is the question of who your decisions affect. Obviously a whole raft of decisions involve risk, but are unavoidable parts of life, and so individuals and their respective communities just suck it up.There are serious health risks with any drug — S
Only a mum! But if you harmed her, would that be a bad thing, even arising, depending on the why you harmed her, to the immoral?My mum would have been distraught. — S
I have read and memorised a lot of information about drugs. — S
Well, my second living deals with synthesizing and distributing novel research chemicals from China to the world, so I'm not sure why this would give me any authority on the matter of assessing the merits of taking XYZ drug as does your non-facetious claim that you have memorized a great deal of info on the effects drugs have. — Wallows
I agree that many, many questions about drug use legal or illegal are not simple. I am also mostly incompetent to comment on most of those questions. Those I leave to you. But the question of the OP is not such a question. And we're not going anywhere until you can see that - that it, at least, is a simple question.This isn't a simple matter. When is that going to sink in? — S
I agree that many, many questions about drug use legal or illegal are not simple. I am also mostly incompetent to comment on most of those questions. Those I leave to you. But the question of the OP is not such a question. And we're not going anywhere until you can see that - that it, at least, is a simple question. — tim wood
I mentioned that because being well-informed clearly relates to responsibility. That's not unique to drug taking, that's true in general. — S
Good question. I don't know. It seems that decriminalization was an alternative to the conservative agenda over here in the US. — Wallows
Well, trying to reduce the whole issue to a matter of taste or preference really isn't going to fly in tim wood's mind. As to why this hasn't been pointed out already baffles me. — Wallows
Yes, you're most likely right, because he doesn't think outside of the box. I know he doesn't like me saying things like that, but it's true. He's a very conventional thinker. — S
Of course I recognise that it's a simple question. That's the problem! — S
-If it is illegal is doing it necessarily immoral? If so, why?
-Can something be immoral for any other reason than that it is illegal?
-If something is illegal does doing it necessarily cause harm or suffering to someone?
-If so, can something be immoral for any other reason than that it is illegal and therefore causes harm or suffering to someone? If so, what other reason(s)? — Janus
What is immorality? In shortest terms it is doing what should not, ought not, be done (not doing what should be done, etc.). Shoulds and oughts are the bane of a reasonable man's life because they are often misused. In proper use, they usually refer to collective and community wisdom, that wisdom going to the heart, in turn, of what is right and wrong, better or worse, good or bad. That is, morality is always based in some reason as cause, even if the reason is not immediately apparent. — tim wood
You have a problem answering simple questions? I personally believe you know perfectly well there is an immoral component to taking illegal drugs, but acknowledging that would present you a problem you do not care to deal with. It's called denial, and that you'd go to the trouble in this forum is itself interesting. Why do we not suspend this, so you can work on that. — tim wood
There's a lot to learn from these compound that scientists are researching and hoping with anticipation get government funding for.
I have always resented the "drugs are bad" mantra that goes around in schools. Deterrence just doesn't work against these drugs. It hasn't worked for alcohol during the prohibition period, and won't nowadays. I've heard that if you remove the "Whoo" factor or the taboo from such drugs, people would go on just fine with them.
Anyway, my two pennies. — Wallows
You seem to have a lot of knowledge, but never until reading your post has it occurred to me that someone can have knowledge yet not know. — tim wood
You write about the possible benefits of drugs and investigations into their powers, some appalling. And as well propaganda about drugs, and the allure and power of some of them that makes control very difficult. — tim wood
But as S. points out with his usual asperity, the question isn't one of the hard ones, rather it's simple. It's in the OP: it is the OP! — tim wood
With your experience of drugs, can you look us in the eye and tell us that taking them has no aspect of immorality? (immorality as I have defined it - or if you don't like mine, then you offer one.) — tim wood
Now, I would redefine the morality of taking drugs as a more nuanced understanding as a clinical approach and understanding this in terms of not "good or bad" but rather to what end are these drugs being consumed(?) — Wallows
Hmm. I had occasions where I expressed my opinion to addicts I had met that I felt - had learned as a hard lesson - it was a fundamental error to regard an addict as a person while they were in the grip of their addiction. They all agreed without demur, even with some enthusiasm as if I had achieved some level of understanding. That is, the addict lies outside of considerations of morality or immorality, his or her actions as an addict on the level of the actions of animals, the morality being reduced to an abstract consideration. The addict as addict, then, is a personification of immorality.the issue really is about addiction in my opinion. — Wallows
So, I might as well as you the question, which isn't so loaded as the one in this thread, is it immoral to take performance-enhancing drugs? — Wallows
Fair enough. Presupposed is that the drugs in question may be beneficial, and that the benefit outweighs any downside. Left is the matter of the community. — tim wood
And to extend this, I hold that morality has a component of duty, as understood in Kantian terms. That is, that there are actions a person should undertake, and naturally would were they free. But that most people are not free, and thus have to work at duty, a fortiori, being moral. — tim wood
Hmm. I had occasions where I expressed my opinion to addicts I had met that I felt - had learned as a hard lesson - it was a fundamental error to regard an addict as a person while they were in the grip of their addiction. They all agreed without demur, even with some enthusiasm as if I had achieved some level of understanding. That is, the addict lies outside of considerations of morality or immorality, his or her actions as an addict on the level of the actions of animals, the morality being reduced to an abstract consideration. — tim wood
The addict as addict, then, is a personification of immorality. — tim wood
Yeah, and this explains why we can't have nice things. It's a gross ad hoc generalization to assume that duty supersedes any chance of making a humanistic mistake such as taking drugs. — Wallows
Your concept of what constitutes a community is somewhat ambiguous. How do you explain the fact that certain states have opted for legalizing marijuana and yet, we still have on national level illegality towards the drug? — Wallows
And, again, you seem to be advocating a Kantian ethical concern deriving from what a community deems as acceptable. — Wallows
The addict as addict, then, is a personification of immorality.
— tim wood
That's daft and doesn't really make sense. If the level of insight into their own condition is impaired by their addiction, then how does that make them culpable for the alleged immorality they are going about doing with their lives? — Wallows
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.