[Date Prev][Date Next] [Chronological] [Thread] [Home]

Re: drugs...? pathetic

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


Greetings,

Keith-

Thanks for the reply :-)
-

I would, in fact, go further and state that not acting would be immoral. Actions when uninformed by knowledge are, in my view, neither good nor bad. After all, I don't think that one can make really tough moral choices if one does not know if that action or inaction is a viable option. For example, if I am being attacked and I respond by killing my attacker I might have acted in away that produces positive consequences (for me anyway) but, it does not follow that I've acted morally (either good or bad). For, if I did not have any options (or did not believe that I had any) then I simply chose the only option available to me. Such 'choices' are not really choices because, a choice implies two or more options from which one could theoretically choose- it doesn't matter if someone is determined for whatever reason (metaphysical, psychological etc). What matters is that the choices are a metaphysical reality. This is important because I think that only CHOICES are moral or immoral (although I dislike the religious connotations of the terms): moral choices arise when we have to make decisions based upon what we think is the right thing to do. They are not the same are normal choices since normal choices involve options that can be (and often are) evaluated by some consequential criterion. But, the funny thing about morality is that we do get those funny cases where the apparantly 'best' consequential action doesn't seem to be the most moral choice (for example, the thought-experiment where you must kill a young child who is about to press the red 'blow up the world' button). In such cases, we can content ourselves with the thoughts that we did the 'right' thing and that we were justified in doing so- but, this is a lot less clear-cut than cases where we think we have done a good thing. If we do use the word 'good' to describe our actions in such cases we must be careful because I think that what we really mean is, "doing X is more good than doing Y" or "doing X is more good than not doing X". I think that this is an easy enough trap for us to fall into but, I have serious reservations about whether goodness is something that comes in degrees.

But anyway, I was saying that choices involve options (two or more). Normal choices are often evaluated via consequentialist criteria. However, moral choices are somewhat different in character. In the first place moral choices involve acting upon that option which one deems to be good regardless of the consequences...
NB. [there is room for overlap here since, some might argue that the definition of a GOOD consequence is one which is caused by an action motivated with concern for doing 'good' regardless of consequences. This might seem paradoxical but, it's not. All it means is that those choices which are made without regard for consequences are themselves consequentially good].
I want to keep this brief but I want to make clear the role the strong ditinction between options and choices plays: options, like actions, are facts about how things are (or could be). To say that an option at time 1 (t1) is 'good' but then becomes 'bad' at t2 is seriously confused. If something is good then it should be good no matter what- if a thing/ action is good depending upon context and circumstances, then I think that it is the context and circumstances themselves that are 'good' or bad'. But, I think that such lines of thinking will get us bogged down in blind relativism. I think that "the plans of mice and men" applies quite nicely here. We want to be looking to motivations rather than actions.

So, I think that options and therefore, actions are neither good nor bad. What CAN tie morality to options, however, is CHOICES. So, choices, in my view, are capable of being good or bad- BUT, only by virtue of what motivated them. After all, we don't want to setup conditions under which we'd have to say that someone with a gun to his/ her head was being morally bad when it's clear that they have minimal options (if any at all). Moreover, we don't want the following kind of reasoning to slip in: suppose that Greg is walking down street A. Let's also suppose that in a street parallel to Greg's (street B) a young woman is being attacked. Now, Greg doesn't KNOW that this is happening but, it's a fact that Greg could have done something to help- that's to say that Greg had the option open to him to assist the young woman. However, it's fact that Greg did not choose that option. Clearly Greg didn't choose to help that woman. But, it's also a fact that Greg didn't know that she was being attacked. And as such, while Greg had options open to him, he was not capable of making a moral decision. If he did not know that the young woman was in trouble he could not choose to do the right thing regardless of the consequences.
So, in order to make MORAL choices one has to possess a certain standard of knowledge (and without meaning to sound crude, this really varies according to how 'trigger-happy' someone is). Suffice it to say that I think that as long as a moral agent knows enough about his/ her options in order to act regardless of the consequences (which entails knowing what those consequences would be) and in favour of what they think is right then they are capable of making moral decisions. It would be foolish of me to specify more specific criteria since, most situations which require moral reasoning have little in common aside from the fact that they present an emotionally and psychologically difficult decision.

Now, if a person is capable of making a moral choice then that person is capable of being moral or immoral- and also (but not necessarily) capable of acting as such. If a person is capable of making a moral decision and makes one regardless of the consequences and thus, in favout of what they think is right then that is 'good'. Conversely, if a person capable of making a moral decision and does NOT make one then that is 'bad'. And that links back to the comments of my last e-mail in which I think that if A cares for B then A has an olbigation to help B. And this is mainly because, and going back to the example of Gregg, if one does not know that one can act then there is no reason for one to act even if one is motivated to do so; however, if one DOEs know that one can act then there is a reason to do so provided that the moral agent is motivated to do so.

Respectfully,

Luis Johnstone.


Keith Thomas-Wurth wrote:

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






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