Sure, I don't think anyone is "perfectly rational", although some are more rational than others. What is puzzling to me is that someone who is obviously intelligent and has studied a fair bit of philosophy apparently cannot keep their thoughts on track regarding what is obviously being discussed. I generally don't like to defer to psychological explanations, although I do acknowledge that in some cases such behavior is on account of emotional biases.

Sure, I don't think anyone is "perfectly rational", although some are more rational than others. What is puzzling to me is that someone who is obviously intelligent and has studied a fair bit of philosophy apparently cannot keep their thoughts on track regarding what is obviously being discussed. I generally don't like to defer to psychological explanations, although I do acknowledge that in some cases such behavior is on account of emotional biases. — Janus

I don't know how else you'd explain that behaviour, except in terms of psychology.

Well, you asked for some method at determining the valence of drug use in a community, did you not?

I responded with advocating a utilitarian ethic as some means at addressing your concerns.

Of course any explanation for human behavior will be either physiological, psychological or ideological, but I'm more interested in trying to call it out constructively and trying to coax someone who is behaving that way to come to see what they are doing, than I am in explaining why they behave that way. If a person behaving that way can already see they are doing it, and does it anyway, then I don't think they belong on a philosophy forum at all.

No, I didn't ask for that. I said that in principle an act can only be immoral if it causes harm to the individual doing it, or to others, or to the community in general. I am not looking at harm in terms of any utilitarian calculus; that is the one model of ethics I don't have much time for.

Then I ought to ask, what's wrong with utilitarian ethics in your view?

Well, I think that might be off-topic, but the basic objection I have is that no such calculus is really feasible. We cannot have mathematical certitude or quantification when it comes to assessing whether or not, or to precisely what degree, an action is harmful; ethics is an art, not a science.

Of course any explanation for human behavior will be either physiological, psychological or ideological, but I'm more interested in trying to call it out constructively and trying to coax someone who is behaving that way to come to see what they are doing, than I am in explaining why they behave that way. If a person behaving that way can already see they are doing it, and does it anyway, then I don't think they belong on a philosophy forum at all. — Janus

Interesting. We have slightly different priorities and ways of approaching this issue, it seems. I often just say what I think, if I think that it's true, even if I think that it could be taken the wrong way, which it often is. I tend to see it more as their responsibility to be objective about it.

The problem here is that Tim seems more interested in pushing the line that drugs are bad than in such criticism. — S

Try reading the title of the thread.
And try, just once, putting in a little substance instead of being always the troll. Maybe don't waste your time playing your rhetorical games; maybe take a better look at the easily available evidence and statistics that show illegal drugs and illegal drug use as the disaster they are.

Or if you believe that illegal drug use is moral, make your case. Until then you have simply shown yourself again a waste of time.

I'm waiting for you to respond properly to what I've previously said, though I doubt your capability, as do others. The ball is in your court.

No, S, et al, the ball is in your court. I have given answer to the question of the OP. You have given no substantive answer either supporting morality or opposing my views. You-all act like a bunch of sophomores. Grow up! But you can have the field if you like. I'll respond to substance, but by now I do not expect any.

Name something that does cause harm in use, that is moral to use. I cannot think of anything. — tim wood

Taking some illegal drugs, perhaps, e.g. @S and his friends camping in the woods.

I suppose that if you expanded the idea of drugs you could include the morality of many "illegal drugs". I am thinking of brain hacking drugs that are meant to make you smarter. So if you had a school exam then one hour before you pop your brain hack pills. I mean, how is that immoral? Trying to make my folks happier when I get better grades! lol My actions of taking the pills will ncrease their happiness!

Taking some illegal drugs, perhaps, e.g. S and his friends camping in the woods. — Michael

I think maybe a better response to a repeated request that has already been met is not to reply with a repetition of the answer already given. Otherwise this discussion could end up sixty pages long, like the discussion on morality, or "Groundhog Day", as I like to call it. Maybe a telling off or an encouragement to listen better would be more effective.

Taking some illegal drugs, perhaps, e.g. S and his friends camping in the woods. — Michael

Take some act that you consider immoral. Break the act down into its separate pieces and parts and ask if any considered by itself is immoral. Very likely not. S. and his friends in the woods have probably done no more harm in the woods on account of their drug use than they might have done without. But harm is incidental to the question. Harm is often a clue or a sign, but the question is to immorality. Had the question been about harm, then it would have been fair to ask what harm was done. And the answer is that the harm done in S.'s adventure in the woods is not readily apparent, but is instead obscured behind the lack of apparent harm. And it lies in that lack of evident harm that many defenses are built. "What harm was done?" or, "Of the harm, it wasn't intended," or variations on these themes. But these are in all cases evasions of the central question.

What is immorality? In shortest terms it is doing what should not, ought not, be done (not doing what should be done, etc.). Shoulds and oughts are the bane of a reasonable man's life because they are often misused. In proper use, they usually refer to collective and community wisdom, that wisdom going to the heart, in turn, of what is right and wrong, better or worse, good or bad. That is, morality is always based in some reason as cause, even if the reason is not immediately apparent.

S. in the woods taking illegal drugs with his friends partakes of this immorality. His several actions considered in isolation do not seem immoral. Taken as a whole, however, what are they? Well, illegal for a start. So what. Indeed so what. What's the big deal? The question of the OP is not about "deals" or their size (or harm). It is about immorality. Is it immoral to break the law? Plato has Socrates give answer to that.

Are illegal drugs illegal for some reason? They're harmful to person and community equally and potentially harmful. The community knows this. Participating in the use of illegal drugs, then, both is, and is regarded as, harming the community.

And there is another aspect of the immorality that lies in the evasion or denial of both fact and responsibility.

It remains to consider the degree of immorality. In S's woods' sojourn, with respect to the particulars of that excursion, not much. But that "not much" disregards what, on presumption, came before. Getting the drugs, planning with others to take them, and whatever consequences might follow. Children do this kind of stuff all the time. In my time it was liquor. Children are usually, in virtue of their being children, immune to any charge of immorality. They're just being bad, or both more charitably and accurately, being children. But S. does not claim that exemption, does he?

To recap, the question of the OP is not about harm or degree, it is whether taking illegal drugs is immoral. On consideration of collective wisdom, community law, harm, and obligation as a member of communities, yes. Anyone can disagree, the trick is to have a basis for disagreement beyond empty assertion. What is yours?
----
Edit. Ultimately, immorality is betrayal of self and community and self as community.

Hi, been away for a few days working on Peer Employment Training. It's free, the jobs are great, not bad pay, and it's all about loving people. That's the best they've come up with.

I believe in Love (God), like Cher auto-tune signs, I believe in "Love after love." When it comes to the mind I have a somewhat different approach. I actually want to know what in the hell is going on.

In the midst of trying to change the life of a fairly young woman with a few mental health issues. My heart really goes out to you. Surround yourself with the best people.

Wow, I'm blown away by the progress you've all made here in my absence.

Doing drugs, being an addict, I missed some times I could have and should have spent with my son. It's not my first choice to use Ted Kaczynski to back me up here but I recently watched the Unabomber series on Netflix. He says, "You have to sacrifice one thing to gain another."

When I (a person, a featherless biped) am addicted to drugs then my whole world (life) revolves around getting the drug, using the drug, having the drug on hand to be used, getting the money for the drug and so forth in addition to everything else a person must do. Drug addiction leaves time for little else. Hell, I missed funerals & stuff!

Those are probably the only people who have truly forgiven me. God's explained it to them.

Janus is right in saying, "Do not murder." I didn't, but I was neglecting a philosophy years earlier I swore to live by, it's from the movie/book, The Razor's Edge: There's a debt to pay for the privilege of being alive. The sin of omission has been a big one for me.

6 years before I began abusing crystal-meth I was a volunteer here in Riverside at the Van Horne Youth Center, like a Juvenile Detention Center. Some of those young men (boys) cried their hearts out to me. They knew I was there for them, that I wouldn't judge them, they recognized my Christian spirit and knew God/Love was at work in my life. I did love each and every one of them. My handler was a man still here in town, much older than I am, he must be 75 or 80 by now. Charlie Sinatra. Catholic Charities.

I'm back on track, I've got a few hundred soaps prepared for the mentally ill at the Wellness fair in less than a month, and a volunteer with that many as well. I make each soap as though it's the Gift of Rapture, I'm intentionally trying to lift these people's spirits out of their bodies.

Sorry for so long, Tim. Maybe it's all God's perfect will, maybe I'm the person I am today providing the most beautiful things anyone has ever laid on eyes, and I'm doing it for free precisely because of the fuck-up I once was?

My goodness. Where to even begin? You're doing that thing where you seem to think that the more you write, the better your argument. If that's what you think, you need a reality check. I'm not going to go over your post from top to bottom. I don't think that I'm the only here who hasn't got the patience for that. But I will point out a few glaring faults:

1. It's wrong to break the law. Why? 'Cause Socrates said so.

2. It's not about harm. Includes harm in his list of reasons why it's wrong.

3. Community! That's it. That's the argument apparently. We're just supposed to assume that the whole community thinks and feels as he does, and that it automatically takes precedence in moral matters.

4. Getting the drugs! (Ignores Janus's criticism, among others).

5. Planning with others! So what? He never completes the thought. He just assumes that it's obviously wrong, like planning a murder or something, instead of, say, planning a picnic.

6. Consequences! Another point which has been dealt with previously. My life, my liberty, my responsibility. Again, just because you're a conservative, that doesn't mean that you're right by default. That's not a valid argument. And you haven't overcome the criticism of your double standard in being anti-drug, yet not anti-extreme sports, for example. Why aren't you anti- anything that has the risk of consequences? Because you're not here to be logical, you're here to push the right-wing anti-drug agenda. That's why. If you won't answer the question, I will.

Ultimately, immorality is betrayal of self and community and self as community. — tim wood

Depends on where you live, don't you think? It also depends on whether one is addicted to a drug or not. Some drugs are just flat out dangerous and irresponsible to use, like heroin or methamphetamine. Some drugs have some utility, like pot or MDMA. So, I don't think painting with a wide brush is apt here, as some drugs have their uses. Also, the same rules don't apply to countries you don't reside in. Like Portugal, where all drugs have become decriminalized or Holland, which is eons more liberal than places like the States wrt. to drugs.

I don't think painting with a wide brush is apt here — Wallows

But that's all he has to go by, and his pallette consists of just black and white. No grey. If it's illegal, it's wrong. If it causes harm, it's bad. If it's a drug, it's bad. If you take them, you're irresponsible. Community! Therefore wrong.

It's like debating a child. Seriously. I remember when I was a child and I had the same sort of naive moral outlook that I'd picked up from the unthinking status quo. I remember being kind of shocked as a school child at my friends who had started to smoke weed, because of the scaremongering and the illegality. Then my eyes were opened.

Yeah, that's pretty funny. You asked him whether all sugar should be banned because his bad argument could lead to that conclusion, and then his response is to try to turn that on you, as though it was an implication of your argument instead of his. — S

Glad I didn't imagine all of that :smile:

But that's all he has to go by, and his pallette consists of just black and white. No grey. If it's illegal, it's wrong. If it causes harm, it's bad. If it's a drug, it's bad. If you take them, you're irresponsible. Community! Therefore wrong. — S

Yeah; but, some (not all) drugs are dangerous and irresponsible to use. So, I can see some merit to his argument about harm reduction. Funny enough, you might like this place called "Bluelight", a forum for drug users, which is all about harm reduction. So, even the most staunch drug users are aware of the fact that drugs can be a bad thing or at least can be harmful to the user if not others related or close to a drug user...

Yeah; but, some (not all) drugs are dangerous and irresponsible to use. So, I can see some merit to his argument about harm reduction. Funny enough, you might like this place called "Bluelight", a forum for drug users, which is all about harm reduction. So, even the most staunch drug users are aware of the fact that drugs can be a bad thing or at least can be harmful to the user if not others related or close to a drug user... — Wallows

No, they're all dangerous. Even paracetamol. Just read the little piece of paper you get in the packet. And so are lots of things. So no drugs, no bowling, no skiing, no dancing, no crossing the road, no using public transport, no anything, basically.

As for my responsibilities, what makes you think that that's even any of your business? If you're trying to be helpful, then fine. I know the risks. You can tell that I'm an intelligent, thoughtful, well-read person. Of course I know the risks. It's my life, my decision. I've been skydiving. I could have ended up dead or paralysed. My mum would have been distraught. But that still doesn't make it immoral. I work in a job that involves health and safety risks, just like virtually every single other job. That doesn't make working immoral. Should we ban sugar? Start a war on emotions?

The double standard needs to be addressed.

Harm reduction? Okay. That's way more sensible than anything that Tim has said. That's much more productive than black-and-white thinking.

Lol, then be facetious. Ain't none of my business what you take to get you through the day or night.

Anyway, if one assumes such a nonchalant attitude towards drugs, then all I can say is so be it.

You can tell that I'm an intelligent, thoughtful, well-read person. — S

Haha, I can't tell that. It's just a forum and I can't surmise what or who you may be.

Go back and read. The question goes to immorality. Not how much or what kind or whether anyone likes it or not. Nor what anyone is should or is going got do about it. Illegal drugs cause harm. Note that the harm is neither particularized or specified. If you do not understand this point, then on what grounds could you object to my shooting up your house, so long as no one was "harmed."

And I just looked again at your post. You ignore "illegal." So what are you responding to? If your argument is that some legal drugs are good and some bad, then you're in a different discussion than this one. And, did you read my offer of a definition of morality? Nothing to say there? So I guess you agree.

People who do things that are immoral don't like to be told that the things they're doing are immoral. And I get that, but it's a kind of lying, or a professing of deeper problems. Is immorality fatal? Does it turn your skin green? Do you get festering boils? Probably not. But again, all of that is not the question.

Go back and read. The question goes to immorality. — tim wood

Yeah, I already read your post twice or so. Still, not everyone lives in the US where we still have pot as a Schedule I drug. If I happened to live in Portugal where all drugs have been decriminalized, then does your argument still apply?

You really are an ignorant troll, aren't you. No substance; a non-reply. Just hand waving. And I've actually seen signs of intelligence in some of your posts. Wtf is wrong with you? Try just once to address the topic, if you have the attention span, without confusing it with your fantasies about what you think the question of the OP is.

I thought you lived in Pennsylvania! Anyway, as to illegality, no. But why, exactly, did Portugal decriminalize drugs? And, question: decriminalization is not the same as legalization, yes?

Second question: Do you think drugs are good for people? Qualification: obviously some drugs benefit some people under some circumstances (not quite the same thing as being good for them). Beyond this, do you think drugs are good for people? A yes or a no would do. And you can qualify if you like, but try not to lose sight of the question of the OP.

Lol, then be facetious. Ain't none of my business what you take to get you through the day or night.

Anyway, if one assumes such a nonchalant attitude towards drugs, then all I can say is so be it. — Wallows

I wasn't being facetious. I was indicating the lack of a filter in these simplistic comments about drugs, including your own comments. There are serious health risks with any drug, including paracetamol. And there are serious health risks in many activities, including crossing the road and going up a ladder. So there's danger almost everywhere you look. So saying that some drugs are dangerous isn't saying much, and actually, as I said, and as a matter of fact, all drugs are dangerous.

But yeah, whether I'm nonchalant about it or not, it's my decision.

Haha, I can't tell that. It's just a forum and I can't surmise what or who you may be. — Wallows

Okay, well I am intelligent, thoughtful, and well-read, and you really should have picked that up by now. I have read and memorised a lot of information about drugs.