Tim, you do realize that his behavior is no different than that of a troll at this point? — Wallows

I'm entitled to plainly point out a poorly formed question, when I think that a poorly formed question has been asked, which is where this began. And if he's going to flame in response, then that makes him fair game. It's as simple as that. He chose to keep replying, and he chose the way in which he replied.

I'm entitled to plainly point out a poorly formed question, when I think that a poorly formed question has been asked, which is where this began. And if he's going to flame in response, then that makes him fair game. It's as simple as that. — S

Yeah; but, you take joy and glee in the whole process, whatever that process entails for you. Anyway, hope you stocked up on your drugs to help you in whatever way they do if they do at all...

Yeah; but, you take joy in seeing him argue with you. — Wallows

So what if I do? I do find it amusing when someone like Tim gets all hot under the collar just because they can't handle a bit of direct criticism. I find it amusing how quickly he resorts to emotional invective instead of a reasoned and controlled response. All of this is off topic, of course. That's the path that Tim, and now you, have taken us down. And your other comments are even more off topic. Pig-chimps, and my drug habit? My cat's fine, by the way. How's the weather where you are?

:cool:

That's the path that Tim, and now you, have taken us. — S

Haha, I'm not that stupid. You don't care about the destination of this thread, just endless rationalizations of your own drug habit, with tim serving as your punching bag.

Now all that’s needed is.......why should it be accepted that
their immediate duty is to comply
— tim wood — Mww

The operative word is "immediate." The context is, "They do not need to spend hours every day rehearsing legislative history and intent and current conditions in order to comply. And in any case that's not their immediate duty; their immediate duty is to comply, to obey, to stop at the stop sign."

The duty imposed by law is compliance. Where the law is immediately applicable, the duty is immediate compliance. This is simple stuff. When the light turns red is not the time to ruminate on the ruling in Marbury v. Madison; rather it's time to come to a stop until the light turns green.

Why should it be accepted? As a moral matter you must mean - the need for compliance as a practical matter seems to me obvious. I defined morality above as reasoned concern for the other, even the other in ourselves as expressed in concern for self well-being. And Law, generally then, is about the other. Compliance is the expression of that concern.

Obviously there have been lots of laws that are not so concerned. Even with these the immediate business is compliance. Any decision to break the law on higher moral grounds cannot be immediate; that requires consideration. Can it be moral to break some laws? Sure, but that's not the question either. The division here is that some think that no - zero - immorality attaches to breaking laws.

Fuck off. :lol: — S

Well done, mere-s. You fuck off too. Now we're at your level, in your pigpen. Is this where you want to be? Is this where you want us all to be?

Now we're at your level, in your pigpen. — tim wood

Abort, abort, disengage!

Yes, but no one has provided either a definition of what law in general, or law in principle, actually is. Nor, most importantly, how it is more than the sum of its parts. — Isaac

In the general sense law is the codification of principles or rules to be followed under threat of punishment for failure to follow them. Law as a general principle would be something like "Do what I say or be punished".

How's the weather where you are? — S

It's a sunny day here in Westlake Village, California, as usual. How about you? And, I'm glad your cat is fine.

Really, Janus? Shall we take you at this word and understand it as your saying that law is without moral content and is never, as I express it, "concerned with the other" but is instead merely and always an oppression?

You didn't only claim that morality was inter-subjective. You additionally claimed that some morals were "near universal", and it is that issue that I disputed. — Isaac

I maintain that some morals, those to do with "life and death" matters such as murder, rape, torture are near universally accepted across cultures as applying at least to those who are communally considered to be members of the community. This really is a matter of survival because any culture which did not follow that way would not last long, obviously; there would be no solidarity.

Haha, I'm not that stupid. You don't care about the destination of this thread, just endless rationalizations of your own drug habit, with tim serving as your punching bag. — Wallows

And everyone else who has made similar points are all rationalising their own drug habits, too? Lol.

I've already said that law (ideally) reflects the important mores of any community; those which are necessary to its harmonious functioning, and in the case of what I call "life and death" mores, even survival. But people are not always good or well-intentioned, so it is necessary for practical reasons to codify some mores as law, subject to punishment for transgression. I don't see anything controversial in this. I said "ideally" above because law can obviously in the real world also be made to serve power elites, and hence laws may indeed be unjust, immoral.

Well done, mere-s. You fuck off too. Now we're at your level, in your pigpen. Is this where you want to be? Is this where you want us all to be? — tim wood

I believe it was you who started the fuck off-ing. You brought us here. So you should be asking yourself those questions. What do you think you could have done to have prevented this? How about responding to criticism less emotionally?

And everyone else who has made similar points are all also rationalising their own drug habits, too? Lol. — S

Nope. You seemed less negative, hostile, and angsty back in the old PF if I remember you correctly. More motivated to learn than the above. What happened since then?

And everyone else who has made similar points are all also rationalising their own drug habits, too? Lol.
— S

Nope. — Wallows

Ah, I see. It's only when I make those points that they're rationalisations. And I'm sure that you saying this has nothing to do with any personal issue you have with me.

Anyway, as you should know, the motivation behind a point is irrelevant. That would be an ad hominem.

And I'm sure that you saying this has nothing to do with any personal issue you have with me. — S

More a concern than anything else. Not any grudge or anything like that.

Anyway, as you should know, the motivation behind a point is irrelevant. It would be an ad hominem. — S

Topic worthy issue. Go ahead and post something about that if you don't mind elaborating.

What were we supposed to be talking about, again? Ah yes. So anyway, the ethics of taking illegal drugs...

Are there any points left that haven't been dealt with? I think that most of us are in general agreement, with the most notable exception of Tim.

I think its been covered ya.
We could talk about the morality of doing drugs, since thats what this is actually about for Tim and other anyway...

I think its been covered ya.
We could talk about the morality of doing drugs, since thats what this is actually about for Tim and other anyway... — DingoJones

For a while there, it was almost like the topic had morphed into something else. Something about fucking off, pig-chimps, my cat, and the weather. Weird. :lol:

It's all my fault, of course, having started it all by having the nerve to respond to a poorly formed question by calling it a poorly formed question. Slap my wrist!

pig-chimps — S

Yes, pig-chimp content.

Yes, pig-chimp content. — Wallows

More of it! That's what I say. Do you concur?

Hmm, well, then you be the chimp and I'll be the pig.

I was being serious lol
Its clearly what this thread is really about. If it was actually about breaking the law there are many many other issues that could have been proffered but this one was chosen because Tim does not approve of drug use. The proper question if the law is really the issue would have simply been “is it immoral to break the law?”.
What Im suggesting is we ask and answer the question Tim and I think others are actually asking “is it immoral to do drugs?”.
How about it gentlemen?

I was looking for respect (for law qua law) as the condition which facilitates our “immediate compliance”.

What is this “other” you’re referring to?

I think it is immoral to do a drug if doing it causes significant harm to oneself or others. And that is the criterion in my view regardless of whether the drug is legal or not.

Ok, lets do harm to self first. What qualifies significant harm? Does it matter if the person accepts the trade off of harm for whatever benefit they ate getting out of it?
I think its going to be hard to call it immoral in the case of harm to oneself only without being inconsistent with peoples freedom to have preferences
Also, would your answer change if we make a distinction between drug use and drug abuse?
The question is about doing drugs, not about what a bad actor choses to do to get drugs etc.
Most things can cause significant harm to self (and others) if they are being done in an excessive, reckless, and/or criminal manner. Why would you single out drugs?

If it was actually about breaking the law there are many many other issues that could have been proffered but this one was chosen because Tim does not approve of drug use. — DingoJones

I agree. That's where it begins. It begins with his disapproval. Although it doesn't surprise me in the least that Tim would come out with something like, "Breaking the law is bad". One could probably guess his stance on a whole range of issues by thinking of the most simplistic, unsophisticated, unoriginal, status quo thing to say.

What Im suggesting is we ask and answer the question Tim and I think others are actually asking “is it immoral to do drugs?”. How about it gentlemen? — DingoJones

That's already been done, hasn't it? Anyway, my shortest answer would be, "Depends".