What qualifies significant harm? — DingoJones
Also, would your answer change if we make a distinction between drug use and drug abuse? — DingoJones
Why would you single out drugs? — DingoJones
I would define significant harm as damage that significantly impairs one's mental, emotional or physical ability to be a normally functional contributing member of the community. — Janus
Using drugs of a kind, or to an extent, that causes significant harm I would classify as "abuse". — Janus
Right, we are talking about drug use not drug abuse, so you mentioning harm is non-sequitor unless you think all drug use causes harm. — DingoJones
Nobody asked for a short answer, thankfully. Why did you opt to offer one? — DingoJones
I didnt realise you had already layed it out in this thread. Like with Janus, I imagine we agree anyway.
Why didnt the people who actually think its immoral answer? — DingoJones
I must have jumped over that part. I get bored watching you try and explain the same shit over and over with little results so I confess I skipped pages here and there. — DingoJones
I was looking for respect (for law qua law) as the condition which facilitates our “immediate compliance”.
What is this “other” you’re referring to? — Mww
In this you set "the law" equal to particular law. Seems like clear category confusion to me. Unless you hold that "the law" is in fact equal to - means - particular law. And that might be convenient for someone who denies any obligation to comply with any law except as he himself decides for himself whether he will comply, in which case he allows it to be a law.Compliance to the law is condemnable in some cases, and certainly not worthy of respect. — S
The question is why? Because you have educated yourself on all of them and have got detailed knowledge of each, and from that knowledge base make a personal decision for yourself in every applicable situation and on every occasion whether to obey or break that law? — tim wood
then how do you avoid the exhausting and constant consideration of your circumstances you need to be in compliance? — tim wood
In the general sense law is the codification of principles or rules to be followed under threat of punishment for failure to follow them. Law as a general principle would be something like "Do what I say or be punished". — Janus
We should respect law as law, — Janus
I maintain that some morals, those to do with "life and death" matters such as murder, rape, torture are near universally accepted across cultures as applying at least to those who are communally considered to be members of the community. This really is a matter of survival because any culture which did not follow that way would not last long, obviously; there would be no solidarity. — Janus
Compliance to the law is condemnable in some cases, and certainly not worthy of respect.
— S
In this you set "the law" equal to particular law. Seems like clear category confusion to me. — tim wood
Of course with this you allow yourself to do anything you want because for you there is no such thing as law until and unless you decide it is a law, after you decide if you feel like complying with it - for the moment at least. Obviously with this no issue of morality, because there is nothing to be moral about. — tim wood
Any accuracy in this? — tim wood
that there is no - zero - expense, that no immorality attaches to the breaking, because they have decided so. — tim wood
A couple pages ago you mentioned Kantian self-legislation. Given that self refers to the specifically human subjective condition and legislation refers to the creation of, or amendment to, laws, it raises the question.....what would any sense of “others” have to do with internally legislated moral law, and the respect rational agents in general possess for law in itself which promises their un-mediated compliance with them?
Either self-legislation, and the principle of absolute necessity from which sine qua non law itself with no empirical content whatsoever arises, is false, or, there can be no sense of “others” in reference to it. — Mww
In the general sense law is the codification of principles or rules to be followed under threat of punishment for failure to follow them. Law as a general principle would be something like "Do what I say or be punished". — Janus
Right, and yet you said that my position that there was no moral imperative to respect the law was "confused" and that...
We should respect law as law, — Janus
So, given your definition of what 'law' is (which seems accurate enough to me) what moral is obliging us to 'respect' it? — Isaac
I maintain that some morals, those to do with "life and death" matters such as murder, rape, torture are near universally accepted across cultures as applying at least to those who are communally considered to be members of the community. This really is a matter of survival because any culture which did not follow that way would not last long, obviously; there would be no solidarity. — Janus
I'm all too aware of the fact that you "maintain" it. Any actual counter-argument to the point I'm making, or are we just going back to sticking your fingers in your ears? I expect I'll be accused of 'sophistry' in a minute, seems the usual tactic to shrug off any counter-arguments people don't like around here.
Is anyone really surprised people like S become a little 'blunt' in their responses. We go round and round with long, complicated counter-arguments and eventually end up either being ignored, accused of sophistry or told we "don't understand". — Isaac
You didn't only claim that morality was inter-subjective. You additionally claimed that some morals were "near universal", and it is that issue that I disputed. — Isaac
Well done sir. — DingoJones
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.