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?

If not, then not. — Pattern-chaser

And therein lies the problem. The question goes back to the morality/immorality of breaking the law - now 27 pages. And the division is that 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. Without, it seems to me, the support of any compelling argument, but much disagreement nevertheless. If you'd like to try your hand at arguing the position, instead of merely making claims, have at it. I'm a sucker for a good argument, but am not persuaded by bad ones.

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. Watch and see how many complain this ground has been covered already ad nauseum, while in fact it has not been substantively covered at all, even in 27 pages.

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

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.

Broadly, to be moral is to do what you should do, in as much as you can do it. And not do what you should not do. But what is the "should"? It's enough here to define the should as grounded in the good (or the avoidance of a bad, a harm, an evil). For whom? For the communities, persons, others, of which the person is a member, including the community of one that comprises himself, in the sense that one can do oneself harm or good.

That is, to choose to do harm is immoral - against the good. What harm does taking illegal drugs do? Aside from the harm to the community of participating in the commerce of illegal drugs, the harm beyond any dispute, the act attacks and impairs law itself. And what is that? I hold here law to be a contract of trust between members of a (the) communities within which the law applies, and abstractly all communities; that they agree to be bound and even subject to penalties, for the greater good. Breaking the law means that the trust is broken, the community as community thereby weakened. Traffic laws are an example. We all get on the roads trusting that others on the road will obey traffic laws. All this implies a slew of duties to self and community, that it is immoral to violate.

These last two paragraphs being argument against your claim.

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 — Pattern-chaser

Not what it is, although I think I have provided that above, but that it is. If you deny that there is good and bad, and often enough a choice to be made between them, and that there is no such thing as morality, then you fall outside of this argument, but not outside of the law, unless you absent yourself from all communities. There is no individual right to harm communities - that communities would be obliged to respect as rights.

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"? — Pattern-chaser

I didn't. It's the question of the OP. And it asks nothing about taking drugs in general, but in "doing" illegal drugs. My answer is that it is immoral to do illegal drugs because they're illegal, and it's immoral to break the law because it's the law - a twofer.

How immoral is it? I have not said, because that was never the question. But it's clear that occasionally the greater morality lies in breaking the law. But this is serious business in as much as such a breaking is implicitly acknowledged to be an attack on the law. 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!

Whether these arguments are perfect is to be doubted - I'm not that smart. But I think they hold. If you want to rail and rant against them, you have much company. But maybe you unlike them will undertake the job of argument against. Because you trouble to be on TPF, I credit you with knowing what that entails, although clearly not all here do.

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.

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. — DingoJones

You might try reading your own comments. I count 26 posts you've made to this thread and not an argument to be found although a claim or two. You can go see for yourself. So what are you talking about?

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.

Soon as I see those countr arguments, I'll attend. But if you review the thread, you will find a lot of vehement disagreement, but no counter-arguments. .

dePonySum asked a question I bounced back to him. Pattern-chaser jumped in, and I answered him. Now you with your insubstantial comment. If you have a horse in this race, then give him a run.

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.

So every time we eat unhealthy we have to justify some greater good? — ZhouBoTong

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

Notice eating unhealthy does not cause enough harm to matter as a moral qualm. — ZhouBoTong

On reflection wouldn't you agree that this needs some qualification. I assume that by "eating unhealthy" you're not restricting the topic to just that extra piece of cake that no one wants, yes?

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. — ZhouBoTong

"Accomplish" isn't part of my argument. As to degrees, sure. That's what this is about. Having that extra piece of cake is immoral, in that it does some harm. But certainly not very much harm. What then does that say about the degree of immorality? 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?

If all illegal drugs were legal, then any question of immorality on the question of illegality would be gone. That would leave other questions similar to those around alcohol use and abuse - but those not in question here. I assume most folks would agree that abuse of alcohol is immoral, insofar as there is the possibility of choice, and similarly with the abuse of any drugs.

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. — S

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

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?

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.

We don't need to go into meta-ethics here, in a normative ethical discussion. Do you understand that? Do you understand the distinction? — S

From online:

"Metaethics is a branch of analytic philosophy that explores the status, foundations, and scope of moral values, properties, and words. Whereas the fields of applied ethics and normative theory focus on what is moral, metaethics focuses on what morality itself is.

"Metaethics talks about the nature of ethics and moral reasoning. ... In fact, drawing the conceptual distinction between Metaethics, Normative Ethics, and Applied Ethics is itself a "metaethical analysis." Normative ethics is interested in determining the content of our moral behavior.

"Normative ethics is the study of ethical action. It is the branch of philosophical ethics that investigates the set of questions that arise when considering how one ought to act, morally speaking. ... Most traditional moral theories rest on principles that determine whether an action is right or wrong."

These above all from a quick search.

And these from the IEP (www.iep.utm.edu),

"Normative Ethics
Normative ethics involves arriving at moral standards that regulate right and wrong conduct. In a sense, it is a search for an ideal litmus test of proper behavior. The Golden Rule is a classic example of a normative principle: We should do to others what we would want others to do to us. Since I do not want my neighbor to steal my car, then it is wrong for me to steal her car. Since I would want people to feed me if I was starving, then I should help feed starving people. Using this same reasoning, I can theoretically determine whether any possible action is right or wrong. So, based on the Golden Rule, it would also be wrong for me to lie to, harass, victimize, assault, or kill others. The Golden Rule is an example of a normative theory that establishes a single principle against which we judge all actions. Other normative theories focus on a set of foundational principles, or a set of good character traits.

"The key assumption in normative ethics is that there is only one ultimate criterion of moral conduct, whether it is a single rule or a set of principles. Three strategies will be noted here: (1) virtue theories, (2) duty theories, and (3) consequentialist theories."

"Metaethics
The term "meta" means after or beyond, and, consequently, the notion of metaethics involves a removed, or bird's eye view of the entire project of ethics. We may define metaethics as the study of the origin and meaning of ethical concepts. When compared to normative ethics and applied ethics, the field of metaethics is the least precisely defined area of moral philosophy. It covers issues from moral semantics to moral epistemology. Two issues, though, are prominent: (1) metaphysical issues concerning whether morality exists independently of humans, and (2) psychological issues concerning the underlying mental basis of our moral judgments and conduct."

---------------

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. — S

I assume you mean this. But I infer from this either that you have a special understanding of "feelings," that perhaps could be here developed for clarity's sake, or you're talking through your hat.

If by feelings you mean thoughts carefully considered and reflected on, then we're on the same path, at least so far, language aside. But as to feelings, in the grip of feelings I might well feel like murdering someone. By your standards and language then, murder is moral this moment and immoral the next moment, depending on the fleetness of the feeling attached. Is that your morality - which way the emotional wind happens to be blowing?

Nor in my understanding do feelings enter the scales for judgment, in as much as they're neither the stuff nor product of judgment. People have feelings; there's no accounting them and it's useless to judge them. To be sure they can provide information, but such as itself needs to be judged if as a cause of action. Corollary, feelings are independent of morality/ethics.

As to the above meta- and normative, I can make sense of that, but as to how it works in this thread, I don't see it.

The real question here, though, is, are your feelings your guide to morality, on a common understanding of "feelings"? Or something else? At the least one can ask how and why you feel the way you do, and perhaps the answers to those may expose a more primordial ground.

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.

Yes it's illegal to break the law, but that does not mean it is not immoral to break the law: it's both. Unless you argue there is no moral obligation to obey law. Is that what you argue?

Or you might argue that moral obligation is subsumed under law, but in that case it's just other words for the same thing.

Here are the two sides: 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 immoral to break the law. That's it. That's the division. No one in all these pages has demonstrated my side is false*. That in some cases a greater morality may be found in breaking a law is not the issue.

I have several times roughly defined morality as doing what ought to be done and not doing what ought not be done. In as much as all of us are both in and members of various communities large and small, there is with each community a set of oughts, hence moral obligations to them. Law is a biggie; break it and in the breaking you harm the community.

*S. simply denies the whole question. He defines morality

I practically cannot help but judge murder, for example, to be immoral, because of the feelings it provokes in me. — S

as a matter of feeling. Would that be your position?

Here, for a start: "As a general point, it is neither moral nor immoral to break the law." — Pattern-chaser. Some claim. Prove it. Or make whatever demonstration you can.

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.

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. — ZhouBoTong

Yes. That's the substance of it. But a caveat even more significant: not easily overridden: it is not a moral choice to dismiss immorality on the basis of convenience or mere desire. That is called rationalization. We all do it, but it's not a good thing. If you're rationalizing an immoral act, you have not overridden anything, you've simply attempted to bury it. And perhaps you might consult your larger community on how they feel about your engagement with illegal drug infrastructure. Depending on my experience, I might think it the greater morality to shoot you - after all, they merely meet a need, but you are the problem.

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?

It depends on whether that law is moral, immoral or amoral, doesn't it? — Pattern-chaser

Only if you're among those, including some who are here, who claim there is no such thing as the law, but only separate "laws." And upon further understanding, that the laws in question are only imposed "rules" - not really laws, whatever they are - that you had better obey, but that there is zero obligation to comply with them, unless you "feel" it.

But of course this is an absurdity.

To your point: it is immoral to break the law. If you're persuaded the law is sufficiently immoral as to justify your breaking it then your breaking it is a moral act. No points for mere disagreement, or if you just find the law inconvenient. It is, in short, one degree of morality weighed against another.

But let's consider your view. Your community, say, is made up of a lot of individuals. Laws are enacted to make life better. But, no one needs obey them, except as they risk being caught out and punished. Is that the community you live in, how it works, how it should work or is intended to work?

Or, what other argument could you make? It must be either that the law is a nothing and therefore not a matter for any moral consideration. Or the the law is a something. If a something, then that something, in virtue of it's being a something, either is, or is not, in itself moral. If it is, then breaking it is immoral. The question of the morality of this or that law is different and posterior.

If none of these, what?

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.

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

Really? 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? Or your "social" obligations, nothing personal there?

Word games won't help. Understand a little more substantively what you're talking about.

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.