Your second sentence I do not quite understand. — tim wood
As account, I suppose state sovereignty is an artifact of the ninth and tenth amendments to the US Constitution. — tim wood
Nope, not me. Certainly not Kant. His community was governed by humanistic reason. Not at all by community opinion. He was willing to look at and consider community wisdom, however, but not to be governed by it even slightly, if it conflict with reason. — tim wood
As addicts, not culpable. As people, culpable. As addicts, not people. As actions, immoral. As actions by an addict, immorality without a culpable agent. Please consider substituting "responsible" for "culpable." Culpability implies blameworthy, which implies an other who assigns blame or fault. Responsibility implies an inner obligation, which I think comports better with morality. — tim wood
1, Yes, because it's illegal. Note this says zero about degree or anything else. As such, this should be obvious. The negation would be that not all illegal doings are immoral. No doubt there are some things worth doing because the virtue is greater than the immorality. Civil disobedience can achieve that. But the thing to mind is that the immorality itself is not negated, it's only overcome. Gandhi, for example, was clear on this when he invited a maximum sentence early in his career of civil disobedience. He knew it was wrong, but that there was a greater right. — tim wood
Your only possibility with this is to argue that some illegal things are not immoral, with respect to their illegality.(1) If it is illegal is doing it necessarily immoral? If so, why? — Janus
It means both? — tim wood
In sum, he went so far as to agree that the immorality of taking illegal drugs "depends." He didn't say on what. — tim wood
With respect to illegality, then, do you agree that the illegal thing is immoral, or that there are illegal things that are not immoral, but moral - with respect to their illegality? — tim wood
LSD-25 was created by the CIA through their MK-ULTRA program on assessing the possibility of creating Manchurian candidates or some really far out ideas like mind control. — 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
An addict needs help, not condemnation. They've become a victim to their addiction, which would be corrupting them and causing them distress. — S
They've become a victim to their addiction, which would be corrupting them and causing them distress. — S
The person as described by you is bifurcated, with the perpetrator as their addiction and the victim as the addicted. I'm not denying the possible truth of this description, just that it's curious. You have a drunken homunculus of sorts puppeteering an otherwise pure and true homunculus.
This revisits our prior discussion, where you assert diminished responsibility for acts committed while intoxicated. It seems to absolve people of the acts of their corrupted will instead of holding people responsible for the acts of their will. — Hanover
Interesting word assignment. I had to look up "bifurcated" and I am trying to put it into context here. Maybe you could reword it for me?The person as described by you is bifurcated, with the perpetrator as their addiction and the victim as the addicted. I'm not denying the possible truth of this description, just that it's curious. — Hanover
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. — tim wood
You didn't ask. That's why it was a problematic question. It depends on a whole bunch of factors to the point that it's rash to even make a judgement without knowing the full details of a particular case. The question should be, "Is this particular case immoral?", but for that we'd need to know more, so my response would be, "Tell me as much as possible about it". — S
With respect to illegality, then, do you agree that the illegal thing is immoral, or that there are illegal things that are not immoral, but moral - with respect to their illegality? — tim wood
And for the nth time may I point you back to the question of the OP. It reads, and I quote, "Is it immoral to do illegal drugs?" Nothing about addicts being immoral. — tim wood
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.
— tim wood
Be nice if you troubled to read and understand before you write. The addict as person is beyond immorality. As a sick person - and I think the verdict is clear that addiction is sickness, with altered brain chemistry, etc. - his/her actions don't fall under morality. But the actions in an abstract sense are still immoral, thus the addict personifies the immorality. I know its a difficult thought, but I think if you can get your knees to stop jerking, you'll get it. — tim wood
Looks like I misspoke. All right. The proposition of the OP is unanswerable according to S. His position as that taking illegal drugs is not in itself immoral, but that it depends on the circumstances. Well, what do we know about the circumstances? Only that the drugs taken are illegal. Implicitly it is a crime to take them - at least that is how I understand "illegal." — tim wood
Implicitly it is immoral to commit crimes. — tim wood
I know, every consumer of illegal drugs under the sun does not want to deal with their actions being immoral. And will twist every which-a-way to avoid dealing with it. I take that back. Addicts in recovery are usually mature enough to acknowledge that taking illegal drugs does harm pretty much everywhere. I have heard them say it, and give them credit for saying it. — tim wood
With respect to illegality, then, do you agree that the illegal thing is immoral, or that there are illegal things that are not immoral, but moral - with respect to their illegality? — tim wood
I am sorry if I came across as trying to separate a persons' free will from their addiction because I do believe they are tightly intertwined, regardless of the reason for the addiction.I'm not denying victimhood, only pointing out the curiosity of separating the person from his will and treating a single person like a dual entity. If I shoot you, I'm the perpetrator and you the victim. If you're an addict, I follow how that addiction could be the result of trauma caused by a perpetrator, but just positing the addiction itself as a perpetrator is confusing because it divides you into two beings: your pure will versus your addicted will. — Hanover
Be nice if you troubled to read and understand before you write. The addict as person is beyond immorality. As a sick person - and I think the verdict is clear that addiction is sickness, with altered brain chemistry, etc. - his/her actions don't fall under morality. But the actions in an abstract sense are still immoral, thus the addict personifies the immorality. I know its a difficult thought, but I think if you can get your knees to stop jerking, you'll get it.
And for the nth time may I point you back to the question of the OP. It reads, and I quote, "Is it immoral to do illegal drugs?" Nothing about addicts being immoral. — tim wood
What are you suggesting by "if you can get your knees to stop jerking, you'll get it" ?
Because I don't "get it". — ArguingWAristotleTiff
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.