RE: drugs...? pathetic

["Keith Thomas-Wurth" <aikeith@iinet.net.au>]

To reply to this message or start a new topic please email: BUPS-DIS@bups.org



Hi Luis, 
Thanks for the absolutely wonderful reply.  Your argument about if A
care about B the A has a duty to help B is great.  I would even go as
far as saying a moral obligation.  Your arguments sit very well with me.
I, besides being a philosopher  (I use the term in the true sense of the
word) am a counsellor.  I see the results of using hard drugs everyday
where I work,  I see the agony of drug induced psychosis.   I see lives
destroyed by drugs, and I include alcohol in that.   Yep, if A cares
about B then A must do something about it or A is only mouthing words
with no meaning.  

Keith




Greetings,

Keith,

Recreational drugs:
I would have thought it obvious enough that we individuals decide 
whether drug-taking is good or bad.
I don't think it's at all hypocritical to admit this. In fact, this 
admission is required for consistency: I, for example,
do not take drugs and it is from this that I know that drug-taking is 
optional. I recognise that those who do take
drugs (and here I am, of course, speaking about so-called 'recreational 
drugs') do so of their own free will.
Do I have a right to tell them how they should be living their life? 
Probably. Do I have the right to coerce them? No.
I'm with J. S. Mill on this one insofar that I think that the harm 
caused by curtailing the freedom of a moral agent to
carry out self-regarding actions does more harm than good in the
long-term.
Of course, one might wonder if there is ever such a thing as a 
self-regarding action. If we are all busy-bodies then probably, no.

Performance enchancing drugs (in sport):
Why is taking performance enchancing drugs a bad thing? Because they 
enchance your performance. THEY do the enchancing,
not your natural ability or hard work. There's no real value in 
something achieved without being worked for. It also seems
somewhat unfair to those whom work very hard and deserve to win. Winning

is traditionally associated with a combination of natural
ability and sheer hard work. And the sporting tradition has grown up 
around that so much that winning and hard-work/ training are
almost synonymous in sport today. I don't think I would be exagerating 
too much if I said that winning when you haven't put in the
hard work that someone else has is not that different from the average 
Joe off the street just walking into the stadium and just being
handed a medal.
Performance-enchancing drugs are designed to make 
performance-enchancement EASIER.

Hard drugs:
Imagine for a moment that your mother or father is hooked on crack. 
Wouldn't you help them?
Indeed, would you not take drastic action (against their will) in order 
to help them? I'd hope so.
Is this a matter of being related? Well, I don't think so since, unless 
we automatically have a right to interfere in the lives of those
whom we are closely genetically related to. We don't need genetics to 
explain or to justify helping our crack-addict mother/ father.
The sole basis for helping in such circumstances would be that of 
caring- we help because we care. It seems clear enough to me that
we have a prima facie duty to help those we care for.

It is, of course, easy to point out that helping your mother/ father is 
different from helping someone off the street. But, what exactly is
different? The conditional might run thus: 'if A cares about B then A 
has a duty to help B.' I suspect that a reasonable conclusion to be
drawn from the argument that 'we ought not help people' is the tacit 
supposition that 'we do not or ought not care about people who are not
closely linked to us'.
Conversely, I also think that if A does not care about B then A hasn't 
the same duty to help B, compared with the first argument.
I would, however, argue that if A doesn't care about B then A OUGHT to 
care about B. Whether this lack of consideration, compassion,
empathy (call it what you will) is down to indifference or moral 
revulsion is important:

If A claims that he/ she does not have a duty to help B because A does 
not care about B then I'd say that it is A who may be in worse
trouble than B. Empathy and being humane are cornerstones of what it is 
to be a 'flourishing' (as you put it) human being. Of course such a
person wouldn't be terribly concerned about the flourishing of another 
if they are not concerned with themselves in the same manner. We would
not, I hope, force people to care for themselves in this manner but, as 
in the case of recreational drugs, we can certainly try to persuade 
(perhaps
educate through experience?). But, once they do care then they will have

developed a greater capacity for compassion which will lead them to
care about their fellow human being.

On the other hand, if someone refuses to help another purely because 
they are 'morally repulsed' by that person (or, specifically, that
person's
character, spirit, moral fibre or whatever) then it would seem that 
caring for a drug-addict (related or otherwise) would be very difficult.
And this brings me back to the use of performance-enchancing drugs: what

they call 'winning' in sport is more often called 'achieving' in 
everyday life.
Achievements in life come about through hard work. Accumulating money, 
for example, can be achieved by anyone which is why we don't
particularly
admire the character of those 'born rich' but, instead, we admire those 
who are 'self-made': "he achieved his goal", "she achieved her monthly 
sales target".
The key point in the story thus far is that things (in this context) are

valuable because they were achieved through working; and working can be 
hard.
Indeed, it seems that the harder the work the more valuable it seems to 
be to someone somwhere. It doesn't seem to me that the person full of 
revulsion
for the addict is having to do any 'hard work' in this respect- and this

seems hypocrtical. When such people do some hard work of their own 
(which would
include helping such people) then they'll understand the value in 
working to improve oneself and they will then understand why some of us 
want to help
those who are experiencing difficulties in life.

Respectfully,

Luis Johnstone



Keith Thomas-Wurth wrote:

>To reply to this message or start a new topic please email:
BUPS-DIS@bups.org
>
>
>Hi,
>Who decides if taking drugs is OK or not and what is the basis of their
>judgement?  What is the basis of the judgement that person A being
>pathetic or person B?  Is there personal bias involved?  Who determines
>what is flourishing and what is not?  Why is taking performance
>enhancing drugs such a bad thing?  In the later case why not let
>athletes destroy themselves?  Don't support the sport if you don't like
>the methods.  Why are we so determined to judge what is right and good
>and then expect everyone else to fall in line?  If someone wants to
>destroy themselves through drugs who's call is that they should not?  
>If something affect me I shall do something about it or not, my choice.
>If someone does drugs and it does not affect me, their freedom of
>choice.  (We all know however that drugs and there effects are not that
>simple)
>Keith 
>
>
>
>Hi,
>
>I know that many people have the idea that if people can only have fun
>with
>drugs then they are 'pathetic', but even if we were to agree that this
>was
>true, does this mean that we shouldn't take drugs? The kind of
enjoyment
>one gets from drugs may be base and may no to compare to un-drug
related
>enjoyment, but as any sort of enjoyment surely it still has SOME value,
>even if this value is very little indeed. AND, if there are some people
>who really only can have a good time with drugs, then who are we to
deny
>them this?
>
>People also take drugs for many reasons, not just pleasure. Some people
>use
>drugs socially - alcohol is the prime example of this - and in a sense
I
>don't think that there is anything intrinsically wrong with this. There
>are many activities that we do solely for social reasons which are
>important for social bonding and showing respect of people and culture
>by
>partaking in their activities etc.
>
>Others take drugs because it makes them feel more comfortable, often
>lowering their inhibitions. While, at first this may seem just as
>'pathetic' as taking drugs for fun, I think that it is understandable
>and
>often useful, once again, for social reasons.
>
>Then there are people who take drugs because it gives them creative
>inspiration. This is particularly interesting as there are many issues
>here. Is it ok to sanction someone damaging themself with drug use if
>this
>is the only way society will be able to enjoy what their talent creates
>which may be works with real, intrinsic value (eg. Hunter S. Thompson,
>Lewis Carroll, Aldus Huxley etc.)? If someone takes drugs to help them
>creatively could this possibly be 'cheating' as it is if someone uses
>drugs to help them in sport?
>
>Here's an example, that illustrates my views on the matter:
>
>Person A is very intelligent and creative, she gets many things done,
is
>sociable and respected by her peers, enjoys intellectual pursuits, and
>on
>top of that writes many great works of philosophy that may remain
>important the shaping of philosophy for decades to come. She also, in
>her
>spare time (maybe even to help her with her work) often drinks alcohol
>and
>takes drugs, although it rarely affects the rest of her life.
>
>Person B, however, works in an office and spends her evenings watching
>Big
>Brother and hanging out with her friends. She has no interest in
writing
>books or creating art, rather, she is hoping to earn enough money for
an
>early retirement. Person B has never taken drugs and drinks in
>moderation
>only occasionally, never so that it effects her work. She is very
>anti-drugs and sees Person A as pathetic.
>
>Here, which is not so far-fetched an example, I really think that
Person
>A's drug-taking does not make her pathetic at all. Person A is living
>what
>I (and possibly Aristotle) see as a full and flourishing life, and
>what's
>more, even if Person B is also flourishing (something that could be
>debated), I don't think it is to anything like the same degree as
Person
>A. It is if, and when, drugs begin to effect and destroy one's life
that
>the issue may change, but in many cases of recreational drug use this
>really does not happen, and so if a person can still flourish with
drugs
>in their life, then I don't see anything wrong or pitiful about that at
>all.
>
>Sorry for going on for so long, but there is just so much to say on
this
>issue...
>
>
>Cressida
>
>Quoting Alice Evans <apyyae@nottingham.ac.uk>:
>
>  
>
>>To reply to this message or start a new topic please email:
>>BUPS-DIS@bups.org
>>
>>
>>** For Your Eyes Only **
>>
>>Err.. i think that's ridiculous.
>>
>>No, i dont think we should take drugs, they fuck up ur brain,
>>    
>>
>marijuana
>  
>
>>fucks up the brain growth of adolescents, coke just sits on the front
>>    
>>
>of
>  
>
>>ur brain for ages, well all that jazz. frankly i think its pathetic,
>>maybe im an old maid, i dont really drink either, i drink very
>>occassionally, i just never really want to, all my friends do, but i
>>    
>>
>can
>  
>
>>have fun without it and dont see the point. im not being very
>>philosophical, im just rambling... apologies. for me i think there is
>>something rather sad, as in depressing, about not being able to enjoy
>>urself without artificial stimulation, its a bit like not being able
>>    
>>
>to
>  
>
>>enjoy urself without spending loads of money, again pathetic, ok,
>>    
>>
>that's
>  
>
>>just my personal rant.
>>
>>done
>>
>>This message has been checked for viruses but the contents of an
>>attachment
>>may still contain software viruses, which could damage your computer
>>system:
>>you are advised to perform your own checks. Email communications with
>>the
>>University of Nottingham may be monitored as permitted by UK
>>legislation.
>>
>>
>>
>>Browse or search the BUPS-DIS archives, or unsubscribe from the
>>    
>>
>mailing
>  
>
>>list at: http://www.bups.org/mailinglist.htm
>>
>>    
>>
>
>
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------
>This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
>
>
>Browse or search the BUPS-DIS archives, or unsubscribe from the mailing
>list at: http://www.bups.org/mailinglist.htm
>
>  
>



Browse or search the BUPS-DIS archives, or unsubscribe from the mailing
list at: http://www.bups.org/mailinglist.htm

-- 
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.9.2/55 - Release Date: 21/07/2005
 

-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.9.2/55 - Release Date: 21/07/2005
 



Browse or search the BUPS-DIS archives, or unsubscribe from the mailing list at: http://www.bups.org/mailinglist.htm