Lawful but Immoral

[dfphetteplace]

Drug prohibition.

What moral right does the state have to tell me what I can and can't ingest into my own body?

Every right if said drug can have a negative effect on society, eg..Imagine a country in which everyone took cocaine. Extreme example, but resonates my point well.

No, your example is ridiculous.

If the principle you're basing your justification on is harm prevention, then you're way off.

Prohibition causes much more harm to society because it puts control of the market into the hand of organised criminals. Turf wars, gang violence, all would be reduced drastically.

Legalization leads to acceptance of the practice. Would you want your child to go to a heroin bar when he turns 21?

Would I want it? No of course not, but I will have raised my hypothetical future children well and I doubt that it would happen. In any case I certainly wouldn't want it to be illegal, if my hypothetical future child wants to do heroin once he's old enough to fully understand the issues surrounding it then he'd be well within his rights to do so imo. Libertarianism ftw.

I call bullshit. No one in their right mind would want to have their child do heroin whether they understand what it is going to do or not.

 

[Kair]

There is no need to assume my tone as arrogant, only confident. I have spent years contemplating the faults of the society we live in. With an objective perspective it is easy to see that the world we live in is wrong. Any laws conserving this society will then be wrong. Since most laws are made for this society, and intended to preserve it, most laws will then be wrong.

Yet you still don't have a single example?

Based on your avatar does the suggest a revolutionary soviet ideology because that'd be an interestingly hilarious perspective to take.

Assuming the hammer and sickle is a symbol of the revolutionary soviet ideology is ignorant. The hammer and sickle is the symbol of the unification of the factory worker and the farmer, the two symbolic necessities of society. What this is when expanded is the economic unification of all individuals.

You want concrete examples? They will branch out into questions and answers and we will have spent so much time to little ends.

1) Intellectual property - limits the distribution of infinite resource to achieve profit.
2) Capitalist ventures - treating currency as a resource of its own, severely limiting the ability for us to use currency as a tool and not only being burdened by it.
3) Crime and punishment - Humans are treated as animals and are trained as such, a symptom of the fact that the vast majority of people exist in a twilight between human and animal.
4) Limited personal freedom - As above, humans are seen as animals and can then not be treated as humans. Sometimes even heavily animalized humans have the ability to control other animalized humans (drug laws, gay marriage restrictions, religion. All these problems are from today's USA, there are many more from the past).

It is so easy for me to just go on criticizing the world. You should just have trusted me. What I rather try to do is find other individuals who lean more towards human than animal. It is hard to save the world, and I can't do it alone. I fear I might be wasting my time with you, prove me wrong and I will be glad.

 

[Avistew]

I would say, if someone is starving, and someone else is letting their food go bad and not eating it. If the starving person tries to take the food, it's theft, and should be reported. That's the legal thing to do, but it isn't very moral.

 

[rossatdi]

Yet you still don't have a single example?

Based on your avatar does the suggest a revolutionary soviet ideology because that'd be an interestingly hilarious perspective to take.

You want concrete examples? They will branch out into questions and answers and we will have spent so much time to little ends.

1) Intellectual property - limits the distribution of infinite resource to achieve profit.
[/quote]

You mean the right for artist to profit from their work? Seems reasonable to me.

2) Capitalist ventures - treating currency as a resource of its own, severely limiting the ability for us to use currency as a tool and not only being burdened by it.

Marx understood and praised the power of free moving capital to drive growth. Its probably gotten out of control but the concept is in a non-controlled economy.

3) Crime and punishment - Humans are treated as animals and are trained as such, a symptom of the fact that the vast majority of people exist in a twilight between human and animal.

Come again? Humans are animals - any assertion otherwise is ridiculous.

4) Limited personal freedom - As above, humans are seen as animals and can then not be treated as humans. Sometimes even heavily animalized humans have the ability to control other animalized humans (drug laws, gay marriage restrictions, religion. All these problems are from today's USA, there are many more from the past).

What on earth is an animalised human? Are you drug use/gay marriage/religion are symptoms of being animals or humans?

 

[dfphetteplace]

Drug prohibition.

What moral right does the state have to tell me what I can and can't ingest into my own body?

Every right if said drug can have a negative effect on society, eg..Imagine a country in which everyone took cocaine. Extreme example, but resonates my point well.

No, your example is ridiculous.

If the principle you're basing your justification on is harm prevention, then you're way off.

Prohibition causes much more harm to society because it puts control of the market into the hand of organised criminals. Turf wars, gang violence, all would be reduced drastically.

Legalization leads to acceptance of the practice. Would you want your child to go to a heroin bar when he turns 21?

Do you have anything other than scare mongering and conjecture? Anyone living in Ireland will remember the head shop controversy last year. They'll also remember that everyone didn't become a drug addict. Prohibition has proven itself to be bad, what we need is honest education on drugs.

I'm sure you have never seen someone dying from a heroin overdose, or had someone try to kill you because they were high on cocaine, nor have you ever entered a booby trapped meth lab that had caught fire, or someone literally become a bipolar schizophrenic because of massive drug abuse. I have. I've seen what drugs do to people almost everyday in my job. When I was in my band I saw a lot of friends turn to criminals because of drugs. I'm not saying everyone that uses drugs will be like this, but it does have an effect on people, and more often then not, it is not a good change. I agree with the education on drugs though. People need to learn that it is not worth it.

In your job you clearly come across the worst possible scenarios. It's like the Bill Hicks bit about there never being a positive drugs story in the news. Same way a car crash is newsworthy, but some guy driving to work everyday for 40 years without incident isn't. Also, it's not laws that prevent drug use (from all you've seen that should be evident), it's knowledge. People who want to do it are going to, they need to be taught why they shouldn't. Prohibition just doesn't deter people enough, it gives criminals more power all while costing a fortune.

So you support legalizing everything?

 

[Zaik]

You should focus on the legality being a function of (i.e. derived from) morality argument and how it is often switched around. We should base our laws on morals, not base our morals on our laws. So many legislators remain ignorant of this fundamental difference and has lead to a lot of harm in the past and today.

Your morals aren't my morals.

How are you going to make laws that cater to some, and oppress others, and call it any better than what is going on already?

 

[Cal Thomas]

Yeah, Ciggarettes (Yes, I did spell that wrong) and drugs are completely harmless... Unless you count second-hand smoke.

Or Drugged out folks going completely bonkers and, say, killing someone.

Or going for a night on the town, taking a drug or so for recreational purposes (or whatever,) having a jolly time, driving back to their flat, still drugged out, and killing someone (Or themselves, but that's free choice, so whatever there.)

Though, I suppose those last two could also happen while drunk, or incredibly angry, or distracted (the last one), or just incredibly stupid (also the last one. Unless they're really clumsy too, but whatever). So there's that.

Legalizing drugs is a tricky buisness (ooh, just thought of another one, giving others drugs without their knowledge and royally fusking them up,) balance between freedom of choice to fusk (Thank you A Bit of Fry and Laurie,) yourself up as much as you like and harming others without really intending to. Overwhelming paranoia versus overwhelming confidence in mankind, really. Both of which are rather daft. But, hey, this is legality we're talking about, right? Ruling through generalizations (Spelt wrong too)!

Anyway, there's also Drug Trade, Black Market, the hundreds (well, probably not, but still,) of unintended side effects of things like this to consider too.

So it's a complicated bit of philosophization! Hope something in here (somewhere in the pages of responses,) will help you out, good luck, hope you're getting paid for this, have a good non-denomination-specific winter holiday, cheers.

 

[Biodeamon]

ha! morals. i personally don't care about morals, i care about logic.

and when it comes to threads about morals there's always someone who has other morals and instead of politely disagreeing will tell you that your a monster.

 

[Liudeius]

Virtually anything corporations do...
It's technically lawful since they use loopholes, though I suppose it could still be considered unlawful to begin with since it's very sinister.
(Tax evasion, fraud, bribery)

I would disagree there is nothing inherently evil about capitalism itself. It's just certain segments who follow it to the exclusion of all else. I was going to say something like that, but it was too hard to qualify, so i will say almost anything done by a too aggressive marketing firm. I'm thinking about the 'Open Letter to EA Marketing' Extra Credits did just now.

EDIT: haha my sentence is confusing. I am thinking of Extra Credits just now, I don't mean that they did the video just now. Please, people who search the forums for people to call out: it was JUST a confusing sentence, no need to yank your keyboard closer to you.

I agree... As long as I understand your wording properly.

I was just generalizing, not actually trying to make a statement about capitalism, or even corporations, as a whole. I said it with the assumption that people would realize that I wasn't saying literally everything done by corporations is wrong, just most of the things you hear about in the news. Swindling, bribing, irresponsible business practices, etc.

Of course there is plenty that corporations are good for as well, just too many greedy people heading corporations.

 

[Sarge034]

Yea, have you considered that the government might be trying to save MY life by not allowing YOU to take a hallucinogen? For some reason, I'm ok with this. They are trying to negate the possibility of second hand smoke inhalation as well by forcing smokers to smoke in designated places. So don't start with the "it's not fair" argument. If you want to get into this PM me.

I don't get it... is this trying to say that someone on hallucinogens is an imminent danger to others around him? Clearly, you've never seen someone on hallucinogens.

You don't know what I have seen, and to assume that everyone on hallucinogens will just set down and have a good trip is plain stupid.

I have had to forcibly restrain someone who was on a hallucinogen because he thought that the people he saw were monsters trying to hurt him. He broke one person's nose and knocked another unconscious.

I have also heard the horror stories about people trying to drive while on them.

So yea, you could say I feel people on hallucinogens pose a threat to those around them. However, I believe you are mixing the two different parts of my post. The drug part had nothing to do with the imminent danger portion of my post.

Snip

E is a hallucinogen as "This illegal drug, which has both stimulant and psychedelic properties, is often taken for the feelings of well-being, stimulation, and the distortions in time and sensory perceptions that it produces." -NIDA Research Report

http://www.drugabuse.gov/ResearchReports/MDMA/default.html

There is the same link on the DEA's site as well.

 

[MorgulMan]

Since the original question was, in my reading, about things which are NOT prohibited by law but ARE prohibited by morality, I'll address that. It seems that most posters are addressing the opposite, activities that are morally neutral or good, but prohibited by law.

There are hundreds of things which are immoral but not illegal. It's hard to list them all. For one thing, different things are illegal in different states/countries/Federation planets. For another thing, I would say there are two categories within this set: Things that are immoral and SHOULD be illegal, because they are harmful to society or individuals, and things which are immoral and SHOULD NOT be illegal, primarily because to prosecute them would be sufficiently onerous as to approach absurdity.

As an example of the second, I put forward lying. Lying is immoral, but in most circumstances, not illegal. But it is so common and would be so difficult to catch/prove, that greater evil would be done attempting to criminalize it than leaving it "legal". Similarly, many forms of sexual immorality, most of which I won't go into for fear that the internet flames will sear my very eyes, and I shall never open them again save to weep.

Speaking of saying things that will get me flamed: abortion is an example of the first category. Most of the world legalizes the practice of killing an unborn human, many places with restrictions, others without. While most here would probably disagree with me in general, consider that. In many places, including my own country and state, a medically viable child can be killed. That is immoral. If that's still not heinous enough to prick your seared conscience, consider that, in past ages, flat out infanticide was not only legal, but sometimes compulsory.

Or adultery. Now this one is often illegal on the books, but almost never enforced in the West. Again, many people have different sexual ethics, but I contend that when you promise to remain with and bond with one person, and then the state recognizes that promise and confers benefits upon you based on that promise, then the state has a legitimate interest in punishing your breach of that promise.

Anyway, that should be enough to get me in trouble.

And now, a bit of fun...

Humans are treated as animals and are trained as such, a symptom of the fact that the vast majority of people exist in a twilight between human and animal....humans are seen as animals...heavily animalized humans...other animalized humans...more towards human than animal. It is hard to save the world, and I can't do it alone.

I hold at your neck the gom jabbar, the high-handed enemy!

Keep it up, comrade. The Kwisatz Haderach cannot be far away!

 

[mcpop9]

Can't remember if it's legal or not In the states but incest, almost 90% sure that it's legal.

 

[lovestomooch]

You should focus on the legality being a function of (i.e. derived from) morality argument and how it is often switched around. We should base our laws on morals, not base our morals on our laws. So many legislators remain ignorant of this fundamental difference and has lead to a lot of harm in the past and today.

Your morals aren't my morals.

How are you going to make laws that cater to some, and oppress others, and call it any better than what is going on already?

Good question. I suppose the only answer I can give to that is slight de-regulation and more debate. By relaxing laws on which there isn't any definite and universal moral basis (i.e. soft drug use such as marijuana etc. and some corporate law) and encouraging cases relating to it to be discussed individually and transparently we may be better equipped at coming to a more widely accepted moral resolution that more people are happier with and so closer to an accepted legal one. Unfortunately, there is no silver bullet and quickfire solution. Each case must be examined and each time people are going to be unhappy as their own moral frameworks are indirectly examined as a consequence. We must learn to be more open and less convicted, even if it frightens us.

 

[cgaWolf]

Just a small sidenote, because the hyppocratic oath has been brought up: while several medschools in the Anglo-American world administer some form of oath, it's important to realise that there's no standard version for it, and that a huge number of doctors around the world haven't sworn to it. In it's original form, it would be wholly unsuited to provide a moral framework for modern medicine. It's a myth or at least not entirely true, that all doctors abide by it.

Re: Seatbelt laws: there's no inherent immorality in a state protecting you against your will. A society has an interest in protecting it's elements/individuals; so seatbelt or drug laws aren't immoral by themselves, they can however very well be hypocritical (pot vs. Alcohol vs. tobacco debate).

*edit: One could argue that when systematicism (I think I just made that word up... Think: adherence to a system, regardless of it's fairness in singular cases, or the measure/scale of a penalty being in no relation to the crime (jail for smoking pot...)) overtakes common sense, you start venturing into immorality. As someone said above "your morals aren't my morals", and while that reeks a bit of subjectivism (something you generally want to stay distanced from, as with moral relativism the actions of the third reich become justifiable), morality is a question that varies over time & culture. We'd like to think only ethics do, but it's very hard to find absolute moral truths.

 

[Kair]

Yet you still don't have a single example?

Based on your avatar does the suggest a revolutionary soviet ideology because that'd be an interestingly hilarious perspective to take.

You want concrete examples? They will branch out into questions and answers and we will have spent so much time to little ends.

1) Intellectual property - limits the distribution of infinite resource to achieve profit.

You mean the right for artist to profit from their work? Seems reasonable to me.

2) Capitalist ventures - treating currency as a resource of its own, severely limiting the ability for us to use currency as a tool and not only being burdened by it.

Marx understood and praised the power of free moving capital to drive growth. Its probably gotten out of control but the concept is in a non-controlled economy.

3) Crime and punishment - Humans are treated as animals and are trained as such, a symptom of the fact that the vast majority of people exist in a twilight between human and animal.

Come again? Humans are animals - any assertion otherwise is ridiculous.

4) Limited personal freedom - As above, humans are seen as animals and can then not be treated as humans. Sometimes even heavily animalized humans have the ability to control other animalized humans (drug laws, gay marriage restrictions, religion. All these problems are from today's USA, there are many more from the past).

What on earth is an animalised human? Are you drug use/gay marriage/religion are symptoms of being animals or humans?

[/quote]

1) Why do I even bother listing it if you can not immediately understand the point when I say "limiting infinite resources".

2) That it has driven out of hand is a symptom of the disease that is plaguing humans.

3) Humanists like to differentiate between instinctual and sentient. Humans today are half-way between, but they can become sentient.

4) Animalized human is a term I just invented to describe the half-animal state of most humans today. We are all born as animals, and very few today ever rise to become Humans.
There is a need to limit drug use because the animalized humans are not capable of controlling it. Animals like religious right-wing nuts and such oppose gay marriage. Religion is simply instinctual and is a means of controlling instinctual animals.

 

[dlsevern]

SAVING YOUR LIFE!!! REALLY?

Drug prohibition.

What moral right does the state have to tell me what I can and can't ingest into my own body?

The flipside of this being the fact cigarettes are legal. Considering the harm they do compared to other drugs which are illegal but far less harmful.

Seems at very least hypocritical that the government doesnt mind me getting cancer but wont let me take ecstacy on a night out.

Yea, have you considered that the government might be trying to save MY life by not allowing YOU to take a hallucinogen? For some reason, I'm ok with this. They are trying to negate the possibility of second hand smoke inhalation as well by forcing smokers to smoke in designated places. So don't start with the "it's not fair" argument. If you want to get into this PM me.

OT- I would have to say any law that punishes a citizen for protecting themselves or another person in distress.

"Imminent danger



As previously stated, before you can prevail under a self-defense theory, you must prove that another was about to kill, seriously injure, or unlawfully touch you.5 A threat of future harm (regardless of how significant the harm may be) will not suffice, as the danger must be immediate.6

Likewise, prior threats are not sufficient to give rise to this defense if they are not coupled with an overt act demonstrating an immediate intention of executing the threat.7 And on that note, the threat must be of an unlawful nature...a threat of a lawful arrest, for example, will not excuse an attack as self-defense.8"


If I shot someone that was in my house without my permission, but they did not pose an "imminent danger" to me I would be convicted of murder. The person was in my house without my permission, or even my knowledge, and I am supposed to assume they are not going to hurt me? Hope it never comes down to that, because I would need a damn good lawyer to fight that murder charge.

Look, the government doesn't care about you, get that into your head. The war on drugs is not about keeping YOU safe or anyone else. It is about government money, certain corporations know that marijuana has the potential to put them out of business so they pay the government large sums of money to keep the war on drugs going strong. YES, that is correct, it is mostly about marijuana. That is how the war on drugs got started that is what it is about now.

Do you realize that if the war on drugs ended today that drug related violence would be a thing of the past, it's been proven. The government would stop spending the millions of dollars it uses to prosecute, an imprison people who don't deserve it. Half of prison inmates housed in our jails are non-violent drug related conviction.

I gotta go now but I could go on forever about this. I'm not intending to offend you or your beliefs, I just know that you aren't informed of the entirety of this matter.

 

[rossatdi]

1) Why do I even bother listing it if you can not immediately understand the point when I say "limiting infinite resources".

2) That it has driven out of hand is a symptom of the disease that is plaguing humans.

3) Humanists like to differentiate between instinctual and sentient. Humans today are half-way between, but they can become sentient.

4) Animalized human is a term I just invented to describe the half-animal state of most humans today. We are all born as animals, and very few today ever rise to become Humans.
There is a need to limit drug use because the animalized humans are not capable of controlling it. Animals like religious right-wing nuts and such oppose gay marriage. Religion is simply instinctual and is a means of controlling instinctual animals.

You are joking aren't you? Had me going there for a while.

Let me guess, first year college or "15 and philosophising"?

1) Intellectual property is there so that people can earn a livelihood from their intellectual and creative endeavours, its not an infinite resource, there's no such thing as an infinite resource.

2) You're not really making much of a statement here beyond 'people are selfish', yes, we know, the free market model suggests that (with market failure exceptions and appropriate regulation to ensure transparency of trade) the invisible hand will guide selfish drivers through the supply & demand curve to generate growth.

3 & 4) You're kind of groping blindly towards the Id, Ego and Super-Ego model which is well established and I think is a pretty good model. I think quite a lot of scientific minded humanists would take issue at you claiming that there is a non-animal state of humanity (presumably denying all instinctual animalness such as procreation?), we're all animals, we'll always be animals - denying our animal instincts is foolish.

Your invented term is inherently contradictory. You say all people are born animals, some 'rise to become human' but refer those that don't as animalised humans. That implies a corruption of what is human by animalisation with contradictory to the statement that all humans are born animals. On that basis, using your invented construct, those who are homophobic have gone from an animal state (which must, as shown above be non-homophobic) to a different state which is homophobic. So have they been humanised wrong?

On the gay note, that's probably quite a cultural construction as its been shown that there are examples of other animals who display homosexuality without social disruption within the group. So anti-gay sentiments would have to be either a uniquely human instinct (which would be counter-productive evolutionary as gay males cut competition for herto males for women) or a social construct).

 

[Sarge034]

SAVING YOUR LIFE!!! REALLY?

Look, the government doesn't care about you, get that into your head. The war on drugs is not about keeping YOU safe or anyone else. It is about government money, certain corporations know that marijuana has the potential to put them out of business so they pay the government large sums of money to keep the war on drugs going strong.

What businesses would suffer from the legalization of marijuana, or any other currently illegal drug?

YES, that is correct, it is mostly about marijuana. That is how the war on drugs got started that is what it is about now.

You could have fooled me..... I thought it was to protect the citizens from the drugs, those who take them, and those who use the profits to fund terrorism attacks on the US.

Do you realize that if the war on drugs ended today that drug related violence would be a thing of the past, it's been proven.

Source please.

The government would stop spending the millions of dollars it uses to prosecute, an imprison people who don't deserve it.

People who break the law are not deserving of prosecution?

Half of prison inmates housed in our jails are non-violent drug related conviction.

What about the other half? Or would talking about the violent drug related convictions completely destroy the validity of your argument?

I gotta go now but I could go on forever about this. I'm not intending to offend you or your beliefs, I just know that you aren't informed of the entirety of this matter.

I do not use drugs, so I couldn't give less of a shit about the feelings of those who do want to. Approaching the issue with that view, knowing the factual information about the drug trade funding terrorism, and seeing the effects of drugs on people I know makes me informed enough.

Good day.

 

[Nouw]

Can you really argue against someone else's morals is my question.

 

[ExileNZ]

Drug prohibition.

What moral right does the state have to tell me what I can and can't ingest into my own body?

Anything that'll make you dangerous to those around you.