please consider and answer the question of the OP — tim wood

I just looked back, to the topic title: "Is it immoral to do illegal drugs?" A little thought leads me to the (simplistic?) conclusion that this is easy. If (illegal) drugs do harm, then it would seem immoral to 'do' them. If not, then not. Is there really more to be said to answer the specific question asked in the OP?

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

some people - me - think there is an ineliminable increment of immorality in breaking the law, which translates to, it is immoral to break the law. And pretty much everyone else mocks that position. — tim wood

As a general point, it is neither moral nor immoral to break the law. But sadly, the reasoning behind this is trivial. A criminal breaks the law; her actions are illegal. A bad person does what is morally wrong; her actions are immoral. Of course, some actions will be immoral, some illegal, some both, and some neither. But there is no intrinsic connection between something being illegal and something being immoral.

You could start by demonstrating how it is not immoral to consume illegal drugs - and the question is not of degree of immorality, but that it is not immoral in any way at all. This invitation to you. — tim wood

I'm afraid I can't answer your question, but not because I'm avoiding it. For a start, your question seems to assume that there is a shared and agreed knowledge of what is and is not immoral, in the general sense. I don't think there is. Immorality is not objective, in the sense of impartial. To determine whether or not something is [im]moral is a subjective value judgement, and one thing that a subjective value judgement is not is impartial. So I could give you an answer that is true/correct to/for me, but the opposite for you.

Secondly, if you don't want to focus on whether it is immoral simply to break a law, then why do you ask "Is it immoral to do illegal drugs"? Why not ask instead if it is immoral to do drugs? Or, if you want to zoom in more, to the drugs in question, why not list the drugs of interest? For all illegal drugs are different, and your question might be answered 'yes' for one drug, but 'no' for another.

Maybe this illustrates why other correspondents have disagreed with you so strongly?

And pretty much everyone else mocks that position. — tim wood

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

People not making arguments against your point is not the same thing as you not understanding or acknowledging them, which is what you are doing. You continue to be confused here.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

What does that have to do with anything? I didnt say anything about me, my comments or your interactions with me. I said “people”, as in reference to people, not me. Its like you do not understand english.
I was pointing out how you have not actually responded to counter counter arguments.
I tried to keep that as simple as possible but something tells me you are going to continue to be confused.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

And I wasn't accusing you of being one of those awful black and white thinkers! :smile: — Janus

So I got that going for me (silent fist-pump).

I find that hard to believe to be honest; I think you're probably being too hard on yourself. — Janus

Well I am not convinced that emotional IQ is actually a thing, but if it is, I won't be at the head of the class :grimace: Maybe drugs will help? (just making sure I stay on topic, hehe)

That is, the breaking must be moral and have in sight a greater good - and it's hard to see how taking illegal drugs realizes a greater good! — tim wood

I am going to try another example but relate it to this concept of "one must accomplish a greater good to justify acting immoral". I think if we acknowledge degrees of morality/immorality that changes the problem.

Take eating healthy: Is there any question that eating healthy is more moral than eating unhealthy? So every time we eat unhealthy we have to justify some greater good? Notice eating unhealthy does not cause enough harm to matter as a moral qualm. A lot of drug use would fall in a similar category.

I just looked back, to the topic title: "Is it immoral to do illegal drugs?" A little thought leads me to the (simplistic?) conclusion that this is easy. If (illegal) drugs do harm, then it would seem immoral to 'do' them. If not, then not. Is there really more to be said to answer the specific question asked in the OP? — Pattern-chaser

A little thought isn't enough, and your conclusion is indeed simplistic. Naïve even. Lots and lots of things cause harm, but not all of them are immoral. That kind of hasty thinking only just scratches the surface. You'd need to develop a more sophisticated set of criteria to get it right.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

It'd be nice if you put on your owl-of-Minerva hat and attempted something constructive. — tim wood

I don't wear hats. I wear a necklace adorned with the severed ears of my enemies. I've got one of yours on there somewhere, I think.

If I may recapitulate your claim as I understand it, morality is established by each individual, and if the individual decides it is not immoral to take illegal drugs then it is not immoral for him to take illegal drugs. Care to correct? — tim wood

Sigh. Well, you don't simply "decide", no. At least nothing like, say, deciding what colour to paint your bedroom. Not if you take ethics seriously, as I do. I practically cannot help but judge murder, for example, to be immoral, because of the feelings it provokes in me. And that's not contradicted by someone else's judgement. I don't go by someone else's judgement. But sure, it's intelligible to say that murder is moral for someone else. What of it? We don't need to go into meta-ethics here, in a normative ethical discussion. Do you understand that? Do you understand the distinction?

I'm guessing wildly here on entry - but I bet this thread would be more coherent if it was titled "Is it immoral to take recreational drugs?".

You are correct sir.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Because doing illegal drugs is dangerous for one reason or another, I would advise against their use.

As a general point, it is neither moral nor immoral to break the law. — Pattern-chaser

But this is just a claim. To be true it must be the case there is no overlap between the two concepts, of law and morality. And of course there is. — tim wood

Of course there is. Morality is personal. Laws, properly drafted, are communal; social. Laws, at their best, reflect the consensus morality of the community. But to break the law - our communal average morality - simply leads to a communal punishment of some kind; to break our own personal moral code is to do wrong. And that's the difference between them.

While there are very many acts that are both illegal and immoral, the two remain distinct.

it's immoral to break the law — tim wood

No, it's illegal to break the law. It's immoral to do wrong. Many things are both, and many more neither, but they aren't the same thing.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Basically, yes. I, myself, would likely proportion the scale of my "justification" to the significance of the act in question. — tim wood

If the act in question does not interfere with the lives of others in any significant way, then I (we) do not need to worry much about justification.

The more my actions affect others, the more I need to justify my actions. When it comes to drugs, you have not convinced me of a need to justify. If I spend $1000 one year on illegal drugs and 3% of that money ends up in the hands of mexican cartels or Al Qaeda (and ignoring the fact that if it was legal, then that would not be the case), do I need to justify my contribution of $30 to global terrorism? Surely my use of plastic water bottles is a more major moral failing?

That in the case of the extra piece of cake, it ain't much. And agree with me, in the world there is often more worrying about that extra piece of cake than about many things of much greater significance, yes? — tim wood

I think almost everyone arguing with you would agree with this. Your concern over "illegal drug use" is the "extra piece of cake".

my side: there is a degree of immorality that attends breaking the law, any law; i.e., it is immoral to break the law. — tim wood

So breaking the law is immoral, but we have agreed that this can easily be over-ridden by superseding morals. Sounds like "breaking the law" is the "extra piece of cake", with the superseding morals being of greater significance.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Yes it's illegal to break the law, but that does not mean it is not immoral to break the law: it's both. — tim wood

As I said:

it's illegal to break the law. It's immoral to do wrong. Many things are both, and many more neither — Pattern-chaser

...and some are one or the other.

Unless you argue there is no moral obligation to obey law. Is that what you argue? — tim wood

It depends on the law. If the law echoes morality (as it would in an ideal world), then it would be illegal and immoral to break that law. It would not be immoral to break a law whose purpose was not moral, but it would be illegal.

my side: there is a degree of immorality that attends breaking the law, any law; i.e., it is immoral to break the law. Your side: it is not necessarily immoral to break the law. — tim wood

[ Highlighted addition is mine. ] It depends on whether that law is moral, immoral or amoral, doesn't it?

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

laws, whatever they are - that you had better obey, but that there is zero obligation to comply with them, unless you "feel" it. — tim wood

Huh? These laws are passed and accepted by communities, and if we break them (and we're caught), there is a penalty to pay. Zero obligation? I think not.

If none of these, what? — tim wood

Laws are social; morality is personal. Both have penalties associated with breaking them, but they're quite different.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Laws are social; morality is personal. — Pattern-chaser

Law and what it is and its concerns and how it works and how it might effect you and yours is nothing personal to you? — tim wood

Do you not see me distinguishing between that which is community-based - or "social", as I originally wrote - and that which is based on the individual - or "personal", as I originally wrote? The law applies to every member of a community/society. Morals apply to all of us too, but not the same morals! Each of us has our own personal moral code.

Or your "social" obligations, nothing personal there? — tim wood

As above, you're getting confused between society and the individual.