But I'd argue that if morality starts with an individual then we need an account of what makes him or her be moral. — tim wood
Leaning either way?But now you. In the US, taking illegal drugs, moral? Immoral? Is there any way it can be moral?
— tim wood
I don't have an answer to this - I'm still trying to figure it out. That's why I'm asking questions. — EricH
What topics? Some people who take illegal drugs do so unintentionally - accidentally? I'm going to guess that most speeders do not even think in terms of speeding. They do not, for example, get on a highway with a speed limit of 55 or 65 and consciously say to themselves, "I'm going to speed at 75-85 mph." They just do it.Speed limits are not so simple - a whole separate topic.
— tim wood
What are the criteria for deciding which laws fall into a separate topic? Many people would consider taking certain drugs under certain situations to fall into the same category as exceeding the speed limit.
is there anything wrong with taking illegal drugs? Yes? No? — tim wood
some of us have a sense of humor and some do not.
carry on. — Arne
And, if you were in a country in which all drugs were legal, would there then be anything wrong with taking such drugs? If there is no law against and nothing else wrong, then it seems to be a choice of no moral significance. But is that an accurate representation of how it is taking them? — tim wood
A tension clear in this thread is between those who suppose they can do what they want whenever they want and it's no one else's business. On the other side are those who recognize that usually it is their business, whether they want it or not. I cannot help but reproduce here Terrapin's answer just above:Do you personally find that if huffing chemicals was as pervasive as the use of heroin, cocaine, crystal meth, etc. that it would be immoral not to make using it this way punishable by law for the moral of posterity? — THX1138
is there anything wrong with taking illegal drugs? Yes? No?
— tim wood
No. That's simple enough.) — Terrapin Station
Maybe you'd like to take on Terrapin's answer, above.Maybe insight to answering this question can be found by asking others: Why is it no longer immoral to observe the eighteenth ammendnet of the United States? Why should there be a twenty-first ammendnet to repeal the initial ratification of the eighteenth ammendnet? Hm... — THX1138
is there anything wrong with taking illegal drugs? Yes? No? — Tim wood
No. That's simple enough.) — Terrapin Station
I think my answer to your question (which because of the way you wrote it I do not completely understand) lies in my post you quoted. Yes, subject to legal controls. There is very little most of us do that is done in a vacuum or in isolation. All of those thing, then, are someone else's business somehow some way. I call that community. And where the community is concerned, the community has an implied right to exercise some control. Whether or how are different topics. But the right is there. And for the most part, for the good.
That covers duty to others. There is also duty to self. There's a morality there as well. And within certain bounds, also subject to law. — tim wood
IMO, there is something "wrong" (immoral) with going full laissez faire in the case of drugs. — THX1138
Estimated deaths due to drug overdoses in the US in 2017, 70,000+. About 200 dead people per day every day!
(https://www.drugabuse.gov/related-topics/trends-statistics/overdose-death-rates)
According to Terrapin, there is nothing wrong there. — tim wood
All of those thing, then, are someone else's business somehow some way. — tim wood
And where the community is concerned, the community has an implied right to exercise some control. — tim wood
There's no way these things are anyone else's business so that there's a moral problem with them. — Terrapin Station
IMO, there is something "wrong" (immoral) with going full laissez faire in the case of drugs.
— THX1138
You don't seem to mention what you think is wrong with it. — Terrapin Station
I promise you that at some point in the conversation I will give my take on this and give you the opportunity to critique it. But right now I'm still trying to fully understand your position. It may seem like some of my questions come across as implied criticisms, but that is not my intent - at least not at this stage of the conversation. :smile:Leaning either way? — tim wood
On Monday December 10, 2012, the private consumption of marijuana was legalized in Colorado. So, as I understand your position, at 11:55 PM on Dec 9, 2012 it was immoral to consume marijuana and then at 12:01 AM it was no longer immoral. Or to put it another way, the immorality has nothing to do with the drug usage, but is only linked to it's illegality.And, if you were in a country in which all drugs were legal, would there then be anything wrong with taking such drugs? If there is no law against and nothing else wrong, then it seems to be a choice of no moral significance. But is that an accurate representation of how it is taking them? — tim wood
I had a neighbor who beat his wife. When I objected, he told me to mind my own business. How do you suppose I knew he beat his wife? The deeper point is that we're mostly all mostly closely connected. If it could truly be the case that your behaviours would be no business of mine at all, likely I'd go my way. But it isn't. — tim wood
a remarkable statement that takes you beyond the boundary of reasonable, rational discussion. — tim wood
The greater risk for potentially uninformed and unprepared fatality comes to mind. — THX1138
I think my answer to your question (which because of the way you wrote it I do not completely understand) lies in my post you quoted. Yes, subject to legal controls. There is very little most of us do that is done in a vacuum or in isolation. All of those thing, then, are someone else's business somehow some way. I call that community. And where the community is concerned, the community has an implied right to exercise some control. Whether or how are different topics. But the right is there. And for the most part, for the good.
That covers duty to others. There is also duty to self. There's a morality there as well. And within certain bounds, also subject to law. — tim wood
I had a neighbor who beat his wife. When I objected, he told me to mind my own business. How do you suppose I knew he beat his wife? The deeper point is that we're mostly all mostly closely connected. If it could truly be the case that your behaviours would be no business of mine at all, likely I'd go my way. But it isn't. — tim wood
All of those thing, then, are someone else's business somehow some way.
— tim wood
There's no way these things are anyone else's business so that there's a moral problem with them. The moral problem would be prohibiting people from doing things that are risky, that can threaten their own health, even their own life.
And where the community is concerned, the community has an implied right to exercise some control.
— tim wood
Implied . . .via people who want to control others making it up? — Terrapin Station
How about both. By the way, are you on with Terrapin that there is nothing wrong with taking illegal drugs?Using illegal drugs is unlawful, not immoral. Two. Different. Things. — DingoJones
On Monday December 10, 2012, the private consumption of marijuana was legalized in Colorado. So, as I understand your position, at 11:55 PM on Dec 9, 2012 it was immoral to consume marijuana and then at 12:01 AM it was no longer immoral. Or to put it another way, the immorality has nothing to do with the drug usage, but is only linked to it's illegality. — EricH
Yep, pretty much, if you can keep it your business! If you cannot, then the claim itself is pretty foolish, yes? — tim wood
How about both. By the way, are you on with Terrapin that there is nothing wrong with taking illegal drugs? — tim wood
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.