Your second sentence I do not quite understand. — tim wood

Well, you've placed your Kantian hero on a pedestal and gave him some sort of authority over all matters pertaining to morality and ethics. Quite an oppressive and stifling person to be around, hence not many nice things can be had with him or her.

As account, I suppose state sovereignty is an artifact of the ninth and tenth amendments to the US Constitution. — tim wood

You say that disparagingly. I find the sovereignty of states, as some sort of release valve for a populace.

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

Yes, indeed there is a conflict here. Your authoritarian would be Kantian dictator is clearly infallible. So, I'll just keep mum to myself about the issue of drugs if I even encounter this Kantian ubermensch one day.

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

To psychologize the issue, why the excessive compartmentalization? It's almost as if you're having trouble coming to terms with the fact that there is an opioid epidemic in the US or meth is being shipped by the ton from labs in Mexico to the States, et cetera, et cetera.

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

The problem I see with an affirmative answer is that if something is necessarily immoral if it is illegal, that entails that when something is legalized it is not longer necessarily immoral, and this seems like a form of moral relativism, since morality is tied to legal convention, which is obviously relative to different times and places. An example: homosexual activity was illegal in many countries unitl quite recently, and still is in others. Does it follow that homosexual activity was/is immoral in those countries where it was/is illegal, but no longer (necessarily) immoral when and where it is legalized?

You seem to suggest that even though if something is illegal it is definitely immoral, that doing it may nonetheless have greater benefits than detriments, and hence it may be worth doing regardless of its immorality. That makes little sense to me, since if its benefits outweigh its detriments, I would say it is more moral than immoral.I don't see it as cut and dried; every act may have some degree of immorality attached to it. For example, when you buy cheap products from overseas, you may be supporting sweatshops or even slavery.

For the sake of clarity and brevity, let's deal with this question first, and then if we can reach some satisfactory agreement in regard to it, move on to others.

Context.

(1) If it is illegal is doing it necessarily immoral? If so, why? — Janus

Your only possibility with this is to argue that some illegal things are not immoral, with respect to their illegality.

Whether they're moral for other reasons, or the good overrides the bad, or whatever, is in this context a different question. 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?

As to the thing itself, that's a whole other question. Why don't we settle the question of the OP first. You may care to consult S.'s last post above. and my reply to him. In sum, he went so far as to agree that the immorality of taking illegal drugs "depends." He didn't say on what.

Which means yes, except for exceptions. — tim wood

It also means no, except for exceptions.

It means both?

It means both? — tim wood

It means either, depending on circumstance.

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

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".

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

Now you appear to be contradicting yourself, but perhaps I have misunderstood. When I asked if something that is illegal is necessarily immoral ("necessarily" here being obviously in respect to its illegality since that is the connection we are discussing) you answered affirmatively. Now you seem to be allowing that some illegal things may be moral with respect to their illegality; which would seem to mean that illegal things are not necessarily immoral.

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

It's perhaps off-topic, but I am going to correct you on this. LSD-25 was first synthesized by Albert Hoffmann in the late thirties from lysergic acid which is a derivative of ergot fungus. He accidentally discovered its psychedelic effects about five years later. It was in the fifties that the CIA tested it on human subjects to determine if it had any potential for mind control.

Ah indeed. Don't know how that slipped my mind. His famous bicycle ride comes to mind.

His famous bicycle ride comes to mind. — Wallows

Yes, it's become something of a beloved iconic image for the tripsters.

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

Hear, hear. What an appalling and ignorant thing to say. An addict needs help, not condemnation. They've become a victim to their addiction, which would be corrupting them and causing them distress.

An addict needs help, not condemnation. They've become a victim to their addiction, which would be corrupting them and causing them distress. — S

Amen. :pray:

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.

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

Yes, I thought of that discussion as well. This is another example of diminished responsibility. The diminished responsibility approach not only more accurately reflects the truth in terms of what's going on in our brains relating to the control we have over our actions, it results in a better society, where treatment, not punishment, is the focus.

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

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?
Going on what I think you are suggesting is that an addict sees themselves as "victims" and though that may be true for some, it is not my story. Having said that, being a victim in other circumstances and there was a true living perpetrator? Once you are able to work through the crap and compartmentalize what has happened to you, the moment you realize you are a "victim", in that very moment in time you have a choice. You can continue where you are being abused and call yourself an enabler of your addiction OR you can choose to do the hard work necessary to become a survivor.
It appears to be a simple twist of words but the shift in placing responsibility, squarely where it belongs after you realize you are being victimized, makes all the difference in who you emerge from the storm as.

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.

It's called a question. Do you see the question mark?

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.

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.

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

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." Implicitly it is immoral to commit crimes.

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.

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 was aware it is a question. You appear to be asking if I agree (presumably with you?) "that there are illegal things that are not immoral, but moral - with respect to their illegality?"

I interpreted that question in the way that seemed most obvious. If I got it wrong then please explain what you did mean.

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

I was addressing your comment. If it was off topic, then you only have yourself to blame.

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

Maybe you should speak more clearly and think more orderly. I don't think that anyone else here sees any merit in your convoluted, higgledy-piggledy system of classifications which you seem to be making up as you go along.

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

All good so far.

Implicitly it is immoral to commit crimes. — tim wood

Uh, and this is where you fail. You fail because you struggle to think outside of the box. Someone who applied critical thinking skills would be able to quite easily come up with counterexamples. Though of course, you would just deny these counterexamples or contradict yourself.

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

Given that you began that little rant by begging the question in your first sentence, everything that follows is completely irrelevant, logically.

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

It was just the "pure" choice.

1) All illegal actions are immoral.

2) Some but not all illegal actions are immoral.

3) No illegal actions are immoral.

3 is in there just for completeness, although it seems to be S.'s position. Insofar as the action is illegal, I argue that it is immoral. Which do you choose? Wasn't any more to it than that.

All good so far.
Implicitly it is immoral to commit crimes.
— tim wood
Uh, and this is where you fail. — S

The one lesson from you is that you will not stop being a sow's ear - and I in the silk purse business.

Answer this. Is a crime a crime, or does it "depend"?

Answer this. Is a crime a crime, or does it "depend"? — tim wood

A crime is a crime, and a silly question is a silly question.

A crime is a crime, and a silly question is a silly question. — S

Is it immoral to commit crimes?

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

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.

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".

Is it immoral to commit crimes? — tim wood

There's no blanket answer to that, as I've already made clear. Why are you asking me poorly considered questions, one at a time, at a snails pace? Do you think that that meets an acceptable standard? Because I do not.

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

I suppose that the addict is a sick person. In order to be tried for a crime you have to have mens rea (I'm not sure my usage is correct), conveniently defined:

"the intention or knowledge of wrongdoing that constitutes part of a crime, as opposed to the action or conduct of the accused."

That is, you have to be mentally able to be responsible in a legal sense for committing a crime, to be convicted of that crime.

Whether the addict is in right mind is an open question - I believe. But that a crime was committed (assuming one was committed) is not in question. Assuming that committing crimes is immoral (although not according to S.; to him committing crimes is not in itself immoral), then you have the difficult circumstance of someone committing crimes not necessarily in themselves immoral, but immoral in their action. I say, then, that in that sense they personify immorality, in distinction to merely being immoral. And I have said nothing about treatment.

Now, S. had made his usual unpleasant knee-jerk non sequitor and somewhat incoherent response, and you drafted in right behind him. OK?