I challenge you to quote this alleged non sequitur.

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. — S

No you didn't. And your opinion matters only if this is T-ball and you want the "ball" teed up a little higher, or lower, or whatever. But this isn't T-ball, so your opinion does not matter. You yourself are more like the batter who cannot hit the ball, but who struts and puffs out his chest and flaps his lips making foolish noises and who glances around all as if he meant something, while all the time being just a fool who takes up space and wastes time.

You have your views, and you're impervious to any sort of reason. But you like to sucker people into setting it up for you, not so you can hit it, because we have finally learned that you cannot, but so you can piss on it. And that, finally, is disgusting. That's you, in discussion disgusting.

Look at my post and your response. It's all right there.

Ad hominems aside, what's the issue here. Again, it's as if you have a hard time coming to terms with our drug-crazed culture here in the great States.

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.
— S

No you didn't. — tim wood

That's ungrammatical. I think you meant, "No, you haven't".

And yes, I have. You must have lost concentration to the extent that you forgot about earlier comments I've made such as this one:

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

You do this sort of thing a lot. You don't display good listening skills and people end up having to repeat themselves a lot with you.

The rest of your reply consists in irrelevant personal attacks, so I've ignored it.

Look at my post and your response. It's all right there. — tim wood

Challenge failed.

Ad hominems aside, what's the issue here. — Wallows

Indeed. To my understanding, at issue is the question of the OP. I've given an answer, and consumers of illegal drugs don't like it. But in all their invective there seems no counterargument, just the invective.

Eventually one tires of re-arguing the same points repeatedly against those who dismissed them the first time.

Perhaps someone will - should - take on the affirmative side: Is it moral to take illegal drugs?

Then argue the other side.

Is it moral to take illegal drugs? — tim wood

So, the issue is how you framed the issue. According to my interactions with you in this thread, you operate on the basis an individualistic Kantian categorical imperative of not breaking the law, which is understandable. Though, what S is doing is not criticizing the Kantian individual, rather the laws that govern his or her behavior. So, don't take it personally, is all I'm saying.

And your opinion matters only if this is T-ball and you want the "ball" teed up a little higher, or lower, or whatever. But this isn't T-ball, so your opinion does not matter. You yourself are more like the batter who cannot hit the ball, but who struts and puffs out his chest and flaps his lips making foolish noises and who glances around all as if he meant something, while all the time being just a fool who takes up space and wastes time.

You have your views, and you're impervious to any sort of reason. But you like to sucker people into setting it up for you, not so you can hit it, because we have finally learned that you cannot, but so you can piss on it. And that, finally, is disgusting. That's you, in discussion disgusting. — tim wood

But in all their invective there seems no counterargument, just the invective. — tim wood

:rofl:

So, the issue is how you framed the issue. — Wallows

Exactamundo!

So, don't take it personally, is all I'm saying. — Wallows

Fat chance of that happening!

Fat chance of that happening! — S

Well, you are a balloon popper and button presser, so whatever floats your boat, I suppose.

Well, you are a balloon popper and button presser, so whatever floats your boat, I suppose. — Wallows

I'm not going to deny that, but I'll say that if you allow yourself to be startled by popped balloons, and if you allow your buttons to be pressed, then that's a sign of weakness, and weakness is something which one should learn to overcome. If you become strong enough, this ceases to be a problem.

There's always a moral beneath the surface.

I'm not going to deny that, but I'll say that if you allow yourself to be startled by popped balloons, and if you allow your buttons to be pressed, then that's a sign of weakness, and weakness is something which one should learn to overcome. If you become strong enough, this ceases to be a problem. — S

Oh yeah, Freddy rears his head in agreement if at all possible with an ubermensch.

There's always a moral beneath the surface. — S

Yeah, and the abyss is pretty deep, so what?

In the wise words of @TimeLine: vat?

Anyway, I see the issue in exalting the laws that govern the behavior of the Kantian that @tim wood is talking about. The problem is actually the personification of the laws with the individual. Tim, would you like to comment on this fusion of laws with the individual, which doesn't adhere to collective wisdom or opinion. There's something fishy about this whole concept despite its psychological appeal.

I'm not sure if Socrates took joy in being the gadfly. Maybe it was some proto-Kantian duty he sought to fulfill.

I'm not sure if Socrates took joy in being the gadfly. Maybe it was some proto-Kantian duty he sought to fulfill. — Wallows

Duty to what? Or who? Anyway, I speak my mind and take joy in playing with mice. That's just the sort of gadfly I am. A catlike gadfly, I guess. A catfly? My duty is to myself, my principles, my desires, my values, and my whims. Me, me, me.

Duty to what? Or who? Anyway, I speak my mind and take joy in playing with mice. That's just the sort of gadfly I am. A catlike gadfly, I guess. A catfly? My duty is to myself, my principles, my desires, my values, and my whims. Me, me, me. — S

Well, we've rather taken a solipsistic turn, haven't we?

delete, double post

I'd choose 3, because I don't think acts are immoral merely because they are illegal.
I think its the other way around: serious crimes are illegal because they are immoral, because they perpetrate major harm on individuals and the community. Some so-called crimes are illegal merely because it suits the power elites that they should be illegal.

Some crimes are illegal merely because it suits the power elites that they should be illegal. — Janus

Who decides?

Legislators in the service of power elites; who else?

Then argue the other side. — tim wood

I have. It goes like this. I point out a counterexample, acknowledged by Michael and others. You then dismiss it and ramble about some phantom harm, the irrelevancy that it is illegal, mention the community for the umpteenth time, and that sort of thing. I then give one of my brutally frank, exceptionally logical, and, as ever, sharply witty criticisms. You then get upset and personally attack me, or ramble some more, or a bit of both, or you revert to silly question mode.

An updated list of "immoral" action throughout history (Mr. Wood's argument suggest all of these are just "lesser of two evils but still evil" - personally I would count some of these as some of the most distinctly positive moral actions in human history and the rest are acceptable responses to atrocities):

The Civil Rights Movement:

Sit-ins
Freedom Rides
Rosa Parks
Any black or white person that married the other ethnicity

American Slavery Era:

Underground Railroad (EVERYONE involved)
Runaway slaves
A slave that protected another slave from a beating

Pre- Magna Carta:

EVERYONE who in any way disagreed with the Monarch.

Ancient Rome:

Most (at least "many") of Jesus' actions including certain times he cured the sick (even if Jesus is god, he still broke the law).

India and its caste system:

To the "untouchables", any action that would improve their status in society.

Nazis and Stalin:

Anyone who resisted. Schindler.

Oh! I almost forgot Africa:

Take your pick, Apartheid, Imperialism, Slave Trade, etc


Surely there are many more similar examples (I am actually somewhat disappointed in myself for this rather meager list).

I obviously do not understand the idea at all that ALL ILLEGAL ACTIONS ARE IMMORAL. Seems ridiculous.

ALL ILLEGAL ACTIONS ARE IMMORAL. — ZhouBoTong

That's because you haven't understood the tension in this thread, which itself arises from people who refuse to understand the question. The question of the OP is,"Is it immoral to do illegal drugs?" That's takes a yes or a no answer. To my way of thinking, the "illegal" answers. Of course there are other reasons too.

Are all illegal acts immoral? Yes. Are some laws worth breaking, immorality aside? History answers yes. But you dismiss regard for that immorality at a price. It's a calculation. It's a calculation that has to be made. And it's in the calculation that you know what you are doing, why, and with an estimate of cost. No calculation, no consideration of morality, and you're in nihilistic, relativist chaos. Read some MLK or Gandhi, or Thoreau.

Are some laws worth breaking, immorality aside? — tim wood

Why are they worth breaking, if not for moral reasons? When people broke slavery laws, they were doing it for moral reasons, as with Schindler.
Why does history say “yes”, if not for moral reasons?

Why are they worth breaking, if not for moral reasons? — DingoJones

Exactly. The immorality of breaking the law is overridden by a presumably superior morality - and would be just the morality of the winner, except for reason and the idea of ethics/morality. But the immorality of breaking the law never goes away - how could it? - except for people who won't acknowledge this concept. .

But the immorality of breaking the law never goes away - how could it? - except for people who won't acknowledge this concept. . — tim wood

Again, aren't we painting with a broad brush here? I will acknowledge that some laws just flat out should never be broken, like murder or theft or libel; but, drug use? Not quite sure about drug use.

It would seem to be that you're trying to decide if something is immoral, and you're looking at the thing itself to tell you. But morality/immorality exists prior to the thing questioned. And this is a logical priority not a temporal priority, although it usually seems temporal. Is thing moral or immoral? Whatever your answer, how do you know? By applying a rule, even if you have to figure out the rule for the first time (logical priority).

Well, presumably breaking the law, doing illegal things, is immoral in itself. Indeed, how not? Is that an end of it? Not in all cases. There's above a partial listing of examples where it's not-so-simple. And it may be that you self-legislate for yourself, out of your sense of morality, that you should (note "should") break this law. Does that make the immorality of breaking the law in the first place go away? How could it go away? It could only go away if it wasn't in the first place. But it is.

If that's too broad brush for you, maybe you need to think it through a little more.

If it is not immoral to break the law, do illegal things, then what are we but subjects of and to power (to either or both those who make the law and those who break it). Morality, in this case, is one of the keys to freedom. Not to do what we desire to do, desire being a form of subjection, but what reason tells us we should do. Is this what people do? Sometimes yes, in times, for example, of war. In peace where big issues aren't always so big, many people become less moral - maybe nearly all people: we all yield to desire at times, when we can. But that's neither freedom nor moral - though it's certainly and manifestly human.

So the question back to you is the question of the OP. It's not a question of degree the better/the worse. It's just existence. Is it immoral to take illegal drugs. I answer yes. Everyone else posting indicates not-yes, but always so far on grounds that exceed the bounds of the question.