Thread: More nonsense to debate: A moral/philosophical justification for drug use

this should be interesting...

Indeed, so much so that you can't even hear a cricket chirping.

Yes, but they are condemned because of the lotus eaters who make them their way of life.

Hmmm, crickets.

Do these crickets you speak of have a particular stand on the use of illegal drugs? :

They love crack.

I know.

I read the first few paragraphs and quickly realized that this will take more than a casual reading to properly digest what you are saying.

I will say this, I differ from many of my conservative "buddies" on issues like this. I believe that people should be allowed to make choices for themselves. An adult who chooses to take gear, smoke weed, look at porn, even purchase sex should be allowed to.

I'll be back to discuss your article more directly.

Originally posted by Dante B.
They love crack.

I know.

thanks for your opinion, but can you back that particular statement up with proven facts.

Originally posted by Pepper
An adult who chooses to take gear, smoke weed, look at porn, even purchase sex should be allowed to.

Pepper, you can't breeze in here with such a logical statement and expect a debate to take place.

Originally posted by naturaltan
Pepper, you can't breeze in here with such a logical statement and expect a debate to take place.

Perhaps I should drink a ton of booze, surround myself with beautiful naked women and then try?

Originally posted by Pepper
Perhaps I should drink a ton of booze, surround myself with beautiful naked women and then try?

and then try what?

That reminds me of a Sublime song see my sig.

I think if they legalize the recreational things they can crack down on the stuff that really fuqs you up like ice, but theres money in wars and a drug war is good for our nation, right?

If you are drunk and surrounded by beautiful women, the LAST thing you should be thinking about is a debate.

Originally posted by Dante B.
They love crack.

I know.

I love crack too. Especially if the crack's name is Britney Spears. I would have lots of hits of that crack with my pipe.

Just kidding. It is going to take a while to read that article. Will have some insightful thoughts about crack later.

I wonder if Dante envisioned this thread degrading to the point of discussing Britney's ass?

Originally posted by naturaltan
thanks for your opinion, but can you back that particular statement up with proven facts.

I've never found the absence of logic or facts to be a major obstacle when speaking out of my ass.

I wonder if Dante envisioned this thread degrading to the point of discussing Britney's ass?

Almost. I hoped it would evolve into a discussion about mine.

Your writing and thoughts have progressed since this piece. That said, it is fun.

I reject the statement that the moral man is the rational man, so I'll refrain from commenting on the rest of your paper, good or bad.

Oh, except this thought: If you wish to truly be rational about progres... perhaps the best thing that could happen to the human race from an evolutionary standpoint is for us to purge all waste from our gene pool. So selectively once we have the technology we should search every humans genes and those that arent up to par we should exterminate to keep them from weakening the gene pool further. Perhaps thinning the numbers down to a million or two to ensure that there is plenty of room for the better elements that were not purged to expand and prosper. Rational? Sure it is, certainly to the long term goals of the human race. Would you consider it moral?

I'd have my doubts about it personally. Oh, and do you think you'd make it in the one to two million?

Originally posted by Eggs
Your writing and thoughts have progressed since this piece. That said, it is fun.

I reject the statement that the moral man is the rational man, so I'll refrain from commenting on the rest of your paper, good orbad.

What the hell does any of this have to do with my ass?

Yes, it is an older piece and my inexperience shines. I've hardly written a damn thing in my life (didn't bother with school-work and such), so I was flying blind and seeing what windshield I'd splatter myself across.

As for moral and rational, that was obviously a simplified statement. One can be irrational about minor things that don't amount to immoral behaviour.

However, morality has generally been presented as something apart from rational activity. It it's "immoral" to use "drugs," why? On what count, in what context. I gather at the roots, most people equate drug use to destructive behaviour (i.e. irrational behaviour). Moral behaviour is tied to positive actions, at least those which are assumed to result in a positive outcome (whether it's pleasing God, society, or the king).

Then the question is on what ground has the idea of what is positive or negative been set.

Is it rational, or not.

Oh, except this thought: If you wish to truly be rational about progres... perhaps the best thing that could happen to the human race from an evolutionary standpoint is for us to purge all waste from our gene pool. So selectively once we have the technology we should search every humans genes and those that arent up to par we should exterminate to keep them from weakening the gene pool further. Perhaps thinning the numbers down to a million or two to ensure that there is plenty of room for the better elements that were not purged to expand and prosper. Rational? Sure it is, certainly to the long term goals of the human race. Would you consider it moral?

It is progress from an individual standpoint. Would I consider that moral? No, because it is irrational, if not absolutely idiotic.

The problem with our human race is not one of a malevolent affliction of genes affecting the select majority.

I'd have my doubts about it personally. Oh, and do you think you'd make it in the one to two million?

You should have your doubts And, if I were to travel along the lines of your example, everyone including me should be destroyed as it severely misses the mark of what makes and doesn't make the excellent person.

Originally posted by Dante B.
What the hell does any of this have to do with my ass?

Yes, it is an older piece and my inexperience shines. I've hardly written a damn thing in my life (didn't bother with school-work and such), so I was flying blind and seeing what windshield I'd splatter myself across.

Hey, thats why we talk, write and expand our current views. So one day we can splatter more effectively on a windshield

As for moral and rational, that was obviously a simplified statement. One can be irrational about minor things that don't amount to immoral behaviour.

However, morality has generally been presented as something apart from rational activity. It it's "immoral" to use "drugs," why? On what count, in what context. I gather at the roots, most people equate drug use to destructive behaviour (i.e. irrational behaviour). Moral behaviour is tied to positive actions, at least those which are assumed to result in a positive outcome (whether it's pleasing God, society, or the king).

Then the question is on what ground has the idea of what is positive or negative been set.

Is it rational, or not.

I personally believe that morality should be rational. Rationality and irrationality are not the end all in morality. However, they are certainly tools that should be used for discerning the truth of morality.

It is progress from an individual standpoint. Would I consider that moral? No, because it is irrational, if not absolutely idiotic.

The problem with our human race is not one of a malevolent affliction of genes affecting the select majority.

I dont see why it is irrational? If progress is the key to humanities evolution and survival through the ages. It is certainly idiotic. At least from the eye glass of morality that we use. One of the problems with using rationality as a factor is that in many ways it is just like having an opinion. Certainly a more calculated one, but still it will vary from person to person. Because something is rational does not mean that there is only one way one can think of it.

For example, while perhaps I could believe that the rational use of drugs to be morally neutral, the fact that society has placed a punishment on doing so would make it irrational for me. It makes it irrational not because it is inherently wrong to use steroids, but because I might consider that anyone who is willing to suffer the consequences of being caught using steroids as irrational.

Is it rational to run stop lights? It gets you to where you are going more quickly, but every now and then you get slapped with a nasty ticket.

Your argument then gives a person an argument that they can use to convince themself what they are doing is moral. However, it cant really be used to convince society at large.

You should have your doubts And, if I were to travel along the lines of your example, everyone including me should be destroyed as it severely misses the mark of what makes and doesn't make the excellent person.

Hrm, what makes an excellent person? Thats a question I'd like to figure out.

I personally believe that morality should be rational. Rationality and irrationality are not the end all in morality. However, they are certainly tools that should be used for discerning the truth of morality.

If they are not the end all, then by what other means can we assess "morality."

I dont see why it is irrational? If progress is the key to humanities evolution and survival through the ages. It is certainly idiotic. At least from the eye glass of morality that we use. One of the problems with using rationality as a factor is that in many ways it is just like having an opinion. Certainly a more calculated one, but still it will vary from person to person. Because something is rational does not mean that there is only one way one can think of it.

Irrational because continual progress in the human realm goes far beyond our mere physical development (brain and body). It is what we've done with our brains in order to apply ourself to our environment, creating nature in our image to satisfy our ends.

That is progress.

Again, however, either you argree that every act has a consequence, good or bad, or you don't. We don't always know ahead of time what the reaction will be, mind you, but there is such a thing as a logical assumption.

"It varies from person to person" doesn't state why, and how, and what the consequences will be.

Assholes are like opinions, they are everywhere.

For example, while perhaps I could believe that the rational use of drugs to be morally neutral, the fact that society has placed a punishment on doing so would make it irrational for me. It makes it irrational not because it is inherently wrong to use steroids, but because I might consider that anyone who is willing to suffer the consequences of being caught using steroids as irrational.

Indeed, but that is not what I am discussing, and before there are laws, there are the assumptions that give them birth. That is what we are discussing, or at least that was the focus of my article.

And taking things as they are now (society and its laws), in order to change anything one must be able to make an argument that shows the faulty nature of those assumptions (what is wrong, and why).

Is it rational to run stop lights? It gets you to where you are going more quickly, but every now and then you get slapped with a nasty ticket.

Is it rational to have stop lights? We can twist this around, round and round, unless we start from the bottom up

Your argument then gives a person an argument that they can use to convince themself what they are doing is moral. However, it cant really be used to convince society at large.

And at one point, "society" was convinced that such things were immoral. However it is indeed hard to root out such poisoned plants from the soiled mind.

Even then, it is not society that has been convinced of anything. Observation will teach you that a sense of "right" and "wrong" is not something that's considered, but rather for most, it is something that is just accepted depending on the society and the current culture that they've been born into--unfortunately.

It's a matter of convincing the right people.

Hrm, what makes an excellent person? Thats a question I'd like to figure out.

And we have the "individuality" thread for that

One thing is for certain, we are long winded bastards are we not.

I think that morality should be based on several things. Rationality being a component of that. Perhaps along with that would be a form of empathy. Its late, I'm not really thinking enough to comment right now.

The most effective manner to prove anything to society these days is probably through statistics and not through philosophy. Its very hard to find somebody whome you could interest with a debate as to whether drugs are right or wrong. Instead you'd also probably have to show them numbers to back up what you were saying. It would be nice if it were truly a philosophical debate, but it is to only a few.

Seriously though, one has to guide the average human around for most of his/her life. Walk them across the street by the hand, brush their teeth before bed... well, not as bad as those perhaps, but close. If steroids were say, legal, then they would be abused, plain and simple. They are abused now most certainly, but if legal they would be more so. Look at all the overweight idiots who were popping ECA stacks like they were candy and hopping on the treadmill without having performed exercise in years. People just like these would abuse steroids, even if a doctoral check-up were required, etc.

So of course we can say that theoretically there are no problems with steroids. Practically there are problems though, and these are what convince me that steroids should not be legal. Sure there are those that will treat them with respect and use them to enhance themselves. Then there are those that would abuse them and mess themselves up, and cost society a bunch of money, etc.

Stop lights were introduced for a reason (or if you prefer traffic circles). For safety, and to enhance the flow of traffic. It is rational then to have stop lights. The question is then does the law against steroids negatively impact anyone? Not really, we can all do just fine without them. How will we do without stop lights (er, or traffic circles)? Not so well.

Your point that what/where we are born into impacts our concept of right and wrong is a valid one. That is indeed where much of the negative stigma regarding the use of steroids comes in. Its just been intigrated into society over time. However, the real question really isnt whether steroid use is wrong or not, but is it legal or not. They are illegal for a reason, and not necessarily a moral one.

Speaking of which, I do believe that if we outlaw steroids, etc... then we really should be less hypocritical about it all and ban alcohol. That causes much more damage every year than steroids do. Of course I do drink, but I also do not hold myself morally superior to those that use steroids.

Anyways, I'm tired and rambling... take care.

Long-winded? Speak for yourself. I prefer to think of myself as delightfully loquacious.

I think that morality should be based on several things. Rationality being a component of that. Perhaps along with that would be a form of empathy. Its late, I'm not really thinking enough to comment right now.

And how is it that emotions are separate from a process of reasoning, in terms of how we are to apply those emotions, and as to how we are to judge who is best fit to receive a certain emotional response.

The most effective manner to prove anything to society these days is probably through statistics and not through philosophy. Its very hard to find somebody whome you could interest with a debate as to whether drugs are right or wrong. Instead you'd also probably have to show them numbers to back up what you were saying. It would be nice if it were truly a philosophical debate, but it is to only a few.

Yes, but as you know, statistics can be manipulated and only work so far to reinforce an already existing presupposition.

Seriously though, one has to guide the average human around for most of his/her life. Walk them across the street by the hand, brush their teeth before bed... well, not as bad as those perhaps, but close. If steroids were say, legal, then they would be abused, plain and simple. They are abused now most certainly, but if legal they would be more so. Look at all the overweight idiots who were popping ECA stacks like they were candy and hopping on the treadmill without having performed exercise in years. People just like these would abuse steroids, even if a doctoral check-up were required, etc.

I agree. But it's also the dominant societal philosophy that has led us (us meaning, the average person) to accept supervision whether by government or by ivory tower intellectuals, to function as our ersatz brain.

You can't have respect or thought for that which you have never truly contemplated.

So of course we can say that theoretically there are no problems with steroids. Practically there are problems though, and these are what convince me that steroids should not be legal. Sure there are those that will treat them with respect and use them to enhance themselves. Then there are those that would abuse them and mess themselves up, and cost society a bunch of money, etc.

Drug abuse may cost our society money because of our system of managed care under the welfare state. Practically, of course, that is something to be considered, and assailed.

But that is not an argument against drug use.

Stop lights were introduced for a reason (or if you prefer traffic circles). For safety, and to enhance the flow of traffic. It is rational then to have stop lights. The question is then does the law against steroids negatively impact anyone? Not really, we can all do just fine without them. How will we do without stop lights (er, or traffic circles)? Not so well.

Ugh, traffic lights serve a very critical and rational function when properly implemented.

And your question is not a question against the roots. The question is, do laws against steroids positively impact everyone, at least positively set against the drawbacks.

As for your health example (the costs), do remember that such programs and enforcement does require funding. That most assuredly is a draw on our pecuniary pool of resources.

It is even more so a draw, practically speaking, when it doesn't truly work to meet whatever ends that are sought ("the war on drugs," and yet how many people regard this as a success).

Your point that what/where we are born into impacts our concept of right and wrong is a valid one. That is indeed where much of the negative stigma regarding the use of steroids comes in. Its just been intigrated into society over time. However, the real question really isnt whether steroid use is wrong or not, but is it legal or not. They are illegal for a reason, and not necessarily a moral one.

Do tell me what that reason is, and if you agree with it, and why.

Speaking of which, I do believe that if we outlaw steroids, etc... then we really should be less hypocritical about it all and ban alcohol. That causes much more damage every year than steroids do. Of course I do drink, but I also do not hold myself morally superior to those that use steroids.

And that of course is what I find exceedingly amusing and execrable.

Anyways, I'm tired and rambling... take care.

Rest well.

And so, Woland awakes from his long nap...

Originally posted by Eggs
I think that morality should be based on several things. Rationality being a component of that. Perhaps along with that would be a form of empathy. Its late, I'm not really thinking enough to comment right now.

The most effective manner to prove anything to society these days is probably through statistics and not through philosophy. Its very hard to find somebody whome you could interest with a debate as to whether drugs are right or wrong. Instead you'd also probably have to show them numbers to back up what you were saying. It would be nice if it were truly a philosophical debate, but it is to only a few.

Seriously though, one has to guide the average human around for most of his/her life. Walk them across the street by the hand, brush their teeth before bed... well, not as bad as those perhaps, but close. If steroids were say, legal, then they would be abused, plain and simple. They are abused now most certainly, but if legal they would be more so. Look at all the overweight idiots who were popping ECA stacks like they were candy and hopping on the treadmill without having performed exercise in years. People just like these would abuse steroids, even if a doctoral check-up were required, etc.

Originally posted by Dante
I agree. But it's also the dominant societal philosophy that has led us (us meaning, the average person) to accept supervision whether by government or by ivory tower intellectuals, to function as our ersatz brain.

You can't have respect or thought for that which you have never truly contemplated.

People must be saved from themselves, at all costs. Our Draconian drug laws are like freeway guard rails; while those blessed with sight might find it difficult to understand why we should pay the price of maintaining the walls, those with their eyes wide shut understand that the average person lives in the world of Hellen Keller, and would obliviously wander into the path of an on-coming semi-truck if the walls were not there.

Imagine if the laws were not in place. Think of mangled flesh and the inhuman cries of the half-dead animals splattered across the free-way. Think of all the time which morality would obligate us to spend on the collection and rehabilitation of the weak, only to thrust them back into the inscrutable terror of reality, so that we could later repeat the process all over again.

It wouldn't be morally right to do such a thing. Would it eliminate them from the gene pool? No. Our self-aware sense of empathy would compel us to nurture the pathetic and the impotent back to 'health'; we could not feel good about ourselves otherwise. Life has no meaning aside from being the shepard of those weaker than ourselves. The only noble personal pursuit is to facilitate the well-being of others, even if the act of doing so comes at the cost of our own.

What purpose does society serve at all, if not for those who are fit to effect a safe-haven for those who are not?

You are in a fine mood, I see.

Originally posted by Section 8
And so, Woland awakes from his long nap...





People must be saved from themselves, at all costs. Our Draconian drug laws are like freeway guard rails; while those blessed with sight might find it difficult to understand why we should pay the price of maintaining the walls, those with their eyes wide shut understand that the average person lives in the world of Hellen Keller, and would obliviously wander into the path of an on-coming semi-truck if the walls were not there.

Imagine if the laws were not in place. Think of mangled flesh and the inhuman cries of the half-dead animals splattered across the free-way. Think of all the time which morality would obligate us to spend on the collection and rehabilitation of the weak, only to thrust them back into the inscrutable terror of reality, so that we could later repeat the process all over again.

It wouldn't be morally right to do such a thing. Would it eliminate them from the gene pool? No. Our self-aware sense of empathy would compel us to nurture the pathetic and the impotent back to 'health'; we could not feel good about ourselves otherwise. Life has no meaning aside from being the shepard of those weaker than ourselves. The only noble personal pursuit is to facilitate the well-being of others, even if the act of doing so comes at the cost of our own.

What purpose does society serve at all, if not for those who are fit to effect a safe-haven for those who are not?

Oh, this must be the highway thread.

It's our way of inviting and devouring fit-to-be roadkill.

Originally posted by Dante B.
You are in a fine mood, I see.

I have good friends, who are willing to listen to me bitch when I become annoyed.

Hmmm, did I detect a hint of sarcasm in your writing S8?