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. — tim wood

So, we have turned towards some moral absolutism or objective infallible truths about drug use. I don't see how you arrived or anyone for the matter could arrive at this conclusion.

No, we have not. Not in any way whatsoever. But if that's all you can hear or figure, I can't fix it. Go and enjoy your drugs and breaking the law. You have the thing all rationalized out, even in mistaking the nature of the Portuguese law that may bite you some day - if Wiki's report is accurate.

No, we have not. Not in any way whatsoever. — tim wood

Then elucidate how have you arrived at your conclusion, because we can run around in circles saying that drugs are bad because they are illegal, and they are illegal because they are bad.

Forgive me if I have construed a straw man out of your position; but, you haven't been entirely forthcoming in presenting your reasoning.

Then elucidate how have you arrived at your conclusion, because we can run around in circles saying that drugs are bad because they are illegal, and they are illegal because they are bad.

Forgive me if I have construed a straw man out of your position; but, you haven't been entirely forthcoming in presenting your reasoning. — Wallows

No. I haven't the strength or time. And you and others are not really interested - that from the tenor and progress of the thread. You work on it and see what you come up with in the privacy of your own thinking.

No. I haven't the strength or time. — tim wood

Oh dear...

And you and others are not really interested - that from the tenor and progress of the thread. — tim wood

How presumptuous. I'm going to assume you think I've been trolling you or some other nonsense, when in fact I'm quite interested in how you are deriving your conclusions. Or as a teacher would say, "Show your work." Maybe I would be able to learn something from you.

Your not really making sense. Its not immoral to break a law that isnt moral and in fact morality sometimes demands you break the law.

You're not really making sense. Its not immoral to break a law that isn't moral and in fact morality sometimes demands you break the law. — DingoJones

Make your case!

You seem to be assuming it is not immoral to break the law. That there may be a greater morality in breaking some laws is not the question. Your starting point assumes what is at issue.

If it be a rule that it is immoral to break the law, then it is immoral to break any law. As it seems to be possible to break a law on moral grounds, it must be that the particular matter of the particular law is grounds for breaking it, not its status as law. Do you follow this? The immorality of breaking that law as law is subsumed under the moral reason for breaking it. But that immorality does not go away.

Suppose instead that it is not immoral to break the law. Where does that lead? No one has any discernible reason to obey the law as law. No question of right or wrong - for any reason, for that way morality lies! Rather it would be, "Will I get caught; can I get away with this?" And if there be no moral underpinning of the law, then no morality. Are you sure you could stand in such a world?

But these are not how people are nor how the world is, for the most part. Are there bad, immoral people in the world. Think before you answer! Your answer must be either yes or no. Yes and you acknowledge morality; no and you acknowledge no morality. And what is the essence of immorality? The wrong, the bad, the harmful, the wrong and bad being versions of the harmful. To deny morality is to deny the possibility of doing harm.

So make it clear how it is not immoral to break the law!

That's because you haven't understood the tension in this thread — tim wood

I think I have. The OP asked, "Is it immoral to take illegal drugs" which most people understood to be a discussion of the morality of taking drugs that happen to be illegal (the main point would be SHOULD they be illegal).

Then you dropped a philosophical whopper on everybody:

Are all illegal acts immoral? Yes. — tim wood

You are aware that most of us in this thread strongly disagree with that? (well I do anyway, I think others agree if I am reading their posts correctly) Also, that is a huge philosophical topic of its own. You might as well have said, "of course it is immoral, God said so" and then got angry when we all stopped and said "wait, how do you know there is a God?"

How presumptuous. I'm going to assume you think I've been trolling you or some other nonsense, when in fact I'm quite interested in how you are deriving your conclusions. Or as a teacher would say, "Show your work." Maybe I would be able to learn something from you. — Wallows

You might try reading and responding to any of a number of my posts, answering any of the questions I pose in them. I have nothing to add to them. And what you need to learn is not something from me: I have nothing to teach. What you have not recognized is that I am not original, all these thoughts I re-present here were worked out a long time ago. So mocking me is essentially mocking yourself as not merely ignorant - we're all ignorant - but stupid in that you cannot or will not recognize kinds of sense and arguments that run back as far as writing, made by people whom ignorant people sometimes find fashionable to dismiss because, apparently, they think it makes them look smart. Don't be one of those people.

You are going to have to produce an argument to justify your idea that it is always immoral to break a law if you want anyone to take your position seriously. For example, if I sincerely believe a law is itself immoral then it would be immoral not to break it, or at least if I have no personal interest in breaking it, to lend moral support to those who do have such an interest.

You're confusing the morality of law with the morality of a particular law. Two different animals. Always bad to break the law, but in rare cases better. The bad is always there. If you think it isn't, argue it away!

And I've made this exact point repeatedly. Doesn't anybody read?

You are aware that most of us in this thread strongly disagree with that? (well I do anyway, I think others agree if I am reading their posts correctly) — ZhouBoTong

Loud and clear! But I've missed their - your - argument. No need to repeat it, but be good enough to point me back towards it.

So mocking me is essentially mocking yourself as not merely ignorant - we're all ignorant - but stupid in that you cannot or will not recognize kinds of sense and arguments that run back as far as writing, made by people whom ignorant people sometimes find fashionable to dismiss because, apparently, they think it makes them look smart. Don't be one of those people. — tim wood

I haven't mocked you, while I don't deny others have. So, nobody is pissing on your shoes and claiming it is raining here, or not me at least.

Give me some reading material, as you claim you aren't here to preach or teach; but, share some thoughts, which aren't entirely clear to me as of yet.

Make your case! — tim wood

Morality and Law are not the same thing. This should be obvious given the huge historical examples where a law was very clearly not moral. Another thing to consider is a moral that you hold can be made illegal, and then you are suddenly immoral regardless of the merits of your original moral position. Failing to recognise the distinction is non-sensical, it renders morality meaningless, arbitrary. A lawmaker could make anything moral or immoral, no matter its merit, no matter if the lawmaker was crazy, or evil. It makes no sense.
Thats my case above. Refer to it in your counter arguments because im not going to repeat it next time you ask me to “make your case!”. Ive done so, and clearly pointed it out to you now.
You are free to not make the distinction between law and morality, but then you need to make that case before asserting it is immoral not to follow any particular law.

Give me some reading material, — Wallows

In this thread you have ignored reference to Plato and dismissed Kant. I submit you have a research problem. I point you toward Plato's Crito and Phaedrus. Kant's Groundworks for a Metapysics of Morals. Thoreau, pretty much anything. MLK Letter from Birmingham Jail. Gandhi. But morality is in almost all philosophy. Try looking for it.

I think it is rather the case that you are unjustifiably generalizing. You claim that "the bad is always there"; but why is it always bad to break the law? You have to show that the bad is always necessarily there in order to be able to justify your assertion that it is my burden to "argue it away".

I point you toward Plato's Crito and Phaedrus. Kant's Groundworks for a Metapysics of Morals. — tim wood

Okay, I'm not well versed in Kant, as much as I should be... Plato, I'm more acquainted with.

Thoreau — tim wood

Hmm, that's a tricky one. Wasn't it Emerson or Thoreau that watched the village ablaze and did nothing, while afterward he was imprisoned for his inaction?

But, if you're looking for figureheads to prop up, then perhaps Nelson Mandela needs mentioning here, don't you think?

Morality and Law are not the same thing. — DingoJones

Agreed! Is your point that some laws are immoral? No one has questioned that. But you seem unable to cognize the notion of law as law. That's a stumbling block.

Another thing to consider is a moral that you hold can be made illegal, and then you are suddenly immoral regardless of the merits of your original moral position. — DingoJones

Yes. Agreed. Try reading some of the above posts.

Failing to recognise the distinction is non-sensical, it renders morality meaningless, arbitrary. A lawmaker could make anything moral or immoral, no matter its merit, no matter if the lawmaker was crazy, or evil. It makes no sense. — DingoJones

Yes. Law as morality is failure to recognize the distinction between them. How does any of this apply?

Let's visit the absurd. You travel in a time machine to Berlin, c. 1928. You have an opportunity to put a bullet through Hitler's heart. Moral? No. It's murder. A good thing nevertheless? Maybe. Does the good outweigh the evil? Arguably. Is murder immoral and wrong? Still yes. That does not go away. And there you have it in small compass. Now I do not want to argue this absurd scenario. I place it before you to put into sharper relief, I hope, that the two, morality and law, are different and that each endures in its own way notwithstanding the other.

But, if you're looking for figureheads to prop up, then perhaps Nelson Mandela needs mentioning here, don't you think? — Wallows

A disgusting way to express whatever you're expressing. I do not prop up Nelson Mandela. He stands on his own without my help.

A disgusting way to express whatever you're expressing. — tim wood

So, let me try and be more explicit. What's your issue here as you seem to have taken a combative tone? Returning to the OP, and what I have said, marijuana is legal in my state yet illegal on a federal level. You seem to have turned a blind eye on this fact, which puzzles me.

Wasn't it Emerson or Thoreau that watched the village ablaze and did nothing, while afterward he was imprisoned for his inaction? — Wallows

Thoreau jailed for refusing to pay a poll tax. Civil Disobedience.

If the law and morality are distinct, then its only immoral to break a law that is moral. Thus when you ask if it is immoral to do illegal drugs what you are really asking is whether or not it is immoral to do drugs.

So, let me try and be more explicit. What's your issue here as you seem to have taken a combative tone? Returning to the OP, and what I have said, marijuana is legal in my state yet illegal on a federal level. You seem to have turned a blind eye on this fact, which puzzles me. — Wallows

I looked for this; I think I remember your making the point, but I don't find it. Short answer, sometimes there's no accounting for law. States and the Feds each have some sovereignty, 9th and 10th amendments to the constitution. If I took MJ, I would not blow smoke in the faces of the Feds. And I suspect that they're not looking for people who do not blow smoke in their faces. Is that a solution? I don't think so, but law sometimes moves slowly.

I don't know if it's been pointed out yet, but if illegality equates to immorality, then the state is the ultimate authority when it comes to determining good and evil. Fascism, to me, is a very dangerous prospect.

If the law and morality are distinct, then its only immoral to break a law that is moral. Thus when you ask if it is immoral to do illegal drugs what you are really asking is whether or not it is immoral to do drugs. — DingoJones

Simple single question: does the notion of law as law - or - law in the abstract, mean anything to you? I argue that law as law is moral. As law. Dismiss that and you're outside of the horizons of law in some wilderness were there is no law but power. And if you're there, no point in continuing the discussion.

I don't know if it's been pointed out yet, but if illegality equates to immorality, the the state is the ultimate authority when it comes to determining good and evil. Fascism, to me, is a very dangerous prospect. — Merkwurdichliebe

Ultimate power, maybe. The power to arrest and worse. But the point, the point I've been pushing up a cliff in this thread, is that breaking the law is immoral; there may be a higher morality in breaking. it - a list above of examples. The point being that the consideration of a greater good or a higher morality does not change the immorality of breaking the law, that law, in the first place.

Im not going to answer your question, as it doesnt address anything Im saying. Its just you reasserting what you have already claimed. This is merri-go-round discussion, but im not going to play with you. You asked me to make my case, I did. You have chosen to ignore it.

the point I've been pushing up a cliff in this thread, is that breaking the law is immoral; — tim wood

It is only immoral in the eyes of the state. This does not necessarily hold true to the opponent of state law. A criminal has every right to consider it his ethical duty to break the law.

But, the greatest problem with regarding state law as the ultimate authority on good and evil, is that it validates the moral right of tyrannies like the Soviets or Nazis. If state law is morally right, then it is impossible to argue that the holocaust and red terror were evil.

I think Tim's argument is something like that in principle it is always morally wrong to break the law. But that principle is based on the idea that laws are in principle moral. If laws are moral in principle, then it is the principled dependence of law on morality that is being asserted and not the principled dependence of morality on law. So, if you say that it is in principle morally wrong to break the law on the stipulation that laws are in principle moral, then what you are really saying is that it is in principle wrong to do something morally wrong, which is an empty tautology.

All this is OK in principle, but when it comes to breaking actual laws, which may or may not be moral; the "in principle" argument fails.

Yes, i think you are right.