[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


Hi Luis, thanks for the response.

That people don't always follow the law doesn't entail that the law does
not represent the moral views of society as a whole. It's true to say
that there are some things that people do regardless of whether those
things are legal. But what follows from this?

The law is usually taken to be represent a moral standpoint. That is, to some extent most laws tell you what you should and should not do. If people break a certain law deliberately (rather than *acratically* - i.e. trying to comply, but having a failure of will) then I rather think it does indicate that the law in question does not represent their moral standpoint - at least in regards to what is morally acceptable in their own behaviour. How else could it be understood?

I am somwhat confused as to why you've distinguished between a personal
view on drug-use and a public one (where in the case of the latter I
take you to mean something more like 'policy'). I would have thought
that having a different public policy on drug-use while possessing, say,
a converse personal position would be the height of hypocrisy.

Well that's certainly one answer to my question 3. - whether our personal attitudes and public attitudes ought to be the same. Maybe they ought to. Maybe if they are not, then we are hypocrites. But isn't it possible to personally have a different attitude to something than you can allow yourself in public. Consider:

A. 'I'm going for a smoke.'
B. 'You said people shouldn't smoke!'
A. 'That's right, they shouldn't. I'd always encourage them not to.'

Is that hypocritical? It's not clear to me that it is. What about forgiving your family for things you would demand were not forgiven in a law court? Compare:

1. My brother promised to leave petrol in the car. He did not. It inconvenienced me and left me out of pocket.

2. The Shell garage's petrol pump said it had filled my car's tank. It had not. It inconvenienced me when my car stopped and left me out of pocket.

The latter is an appropriately public thing, properly governed by trading law and generalized contracts. These are supported or argued against according to your public attitudes. The former is a personal thing, a private relationship and deal, a matter of your personal attitudes.

In 1. I would say to anyone that they should forgive their loved one. Their personal attitude to contracts should be flexible. In 2. I would say to anyone that they should sue the public company. Their attitude to contracts ought to be non-flexible, and demanding of compensation.

If we make the person in question Prime Minister, I would say that they should personally not enforce this particular contract, whilst publically arguing that contracts should be rigorously enforced. I don't think this is hypocritical either. We should have different attitudes in personal matters than those we will defend in public affairs. We would be inhuman otherwise, end up killing our own sons like Brutus.

The question is which kind of thing drug use is (and drunkenness and junk food and promiscuity etc.). And this is detail-dependent. Does the person in question take their drugs quietly at home? Are they quiet drugs or manic ones like metamphetamines? Does this occur in a society that pays for the medical treatment and burial of others. Are we brutalised just by there being drug-users in our society? Is any drug-user an island? If not, how much effect on others should we allow? All very J.S.Mill...

Which is why I agree wholeheartedly with your last bit below. I just see it within a different political framework of private and public spheres and attitudes.

However, what I think is really interesting is whether there is or
should be a difference between our attitudes on public drug-use and
private drug-use. Is drug-use really the business of others IF it's a
private matter which does not directly impact upon others? And, is there
such a thing as a 'private-matter' anyway? It is, of course, a tricky
matter as to where we draw the boundaries between the two.


Whaddya reckon?

Best wishes,

Rab.


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