Freethought & Rationalism Archive

fatherphil · 05-05-2003, 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sharif
Your first post in this thread should have read: "I think drug use is immoral and nobody can change my mind because I don't actually consider others arguments". That way nobody would have responded and wasted their time.

nice first post.

beth · 05-05-2003, 12:11 PM

OK, phil. As usual, I misread the posts.

Well, I'm not too into recreational drug use. I cannot stop people from using, but it's not for me. But I will drink. I don't see anything wrong with that as long as I'm not drunk and I've quit doing that...

fatherphil · 05-05-2003, 12:59 PM

i know, i've seen you drunk. its quite a spectacle

beth · 05-05-2003, 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by fatherphil
i know, i've seen you drunk. its quite a spectacle

Believe me, it's even more legendary in person. Quite a few people are still talking about it. Probably will till their dying day. At least they'll never call me a prude again....

Farren · 05-05-2003, 06:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by fatherphil
to restate the original post since we have been dragging pharmaceutical uses into the discussion.
my moral question hinges on the implied contract we have to society which places certain resposibilities on one another to do our best/bring our best to the deal.

the limb upon which we claim an improvement in ourselves through getting high is shaky at best and i feel there are better ways to overcome our inhibitions or social discomfort than using drugs.

i think there is more black and white in the world than one might think and the use of grey to justify our actions to me is just that, self-justification.

also, don't assume that i'm speaking from some platform. i ask these questions from a life of experience that may have encompassed more than you would expect.

Well, now that you've clarified it, I can say without hesitation that I think your premise (that we are implicitly bound by such a social contract) is wrong.

Morality and ethics self evidently procede from language and discourse. Prior to having this ability we could only exercise empathy and compassion, without named boundaries or social contracts.

Since I can concieve of a time before man could speak or establish and maintain a pattern of morality, I fail to see how such a contract is implicit.

Its nice, sure. But implicit? No. We made it up as we went along, and we're still making it up.

With regard to the black and white vs grey thing, I would have to strongly disagree. While is fine and lovely to reduce humans to statistical norms, the mean deviation from this norm is immense. We are born into this world under a vast number of different circumstances, with a vast range of differing metabolisms and emotional faculties.

The presumption of too many black and white clauses in social interaction implicitly denies this. It is a haven for those who want to simplify the human condition in order to understand it better, rather than understand what it really is.

It's also counter-productive from a cultural (memetic) and biological (genetic) evolutionary standpoint, the symmetry breaking required to have an adaptive cultural and eco-system requires random aberration.

The daoists and buddhists, I think, have it right: the best morality is an adaptive one, driven by empathy, compassion and a well developed awareness of the eternal present.

Its no coincidence that the spectacular explosion of science and art we've experienced in the last three centuries coincides with an unprecedented level of intellectual and moral freedom in Western civilisation.

Thalia · 05-05-2003, 07:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by fatherphil
this response applies to farren as well:

thalia, your neighbor is anyone you come across. think of the "good samaritan" story. the camper, climber, mommy, ect.. is still available to the society they interact within.

Um, I think you are ignoring the premise of our argument. People in these situations are either severly less able to help anyone or completely unable to help anyone because they are away from anyone they could help. If you could only try to obtain the help of one of two people, who would it be- a guy who is high but next door, or someone alone on Mt. Everest? :banghead:

Furthermore, I don't think some one who is on an illegal substance is necessarily unable to help someone. Maybe they are not 100% their best selves but they can help.

fatherphil · 05-05-2003, 08:41 PM

forget everest, what if they are on the toilet? how can they help then? but if you are climbing everest and you need help from someone you run across up there, you'd hope he was sober.

but if you want to maintain that because folks are sometimes indisposed that justifies their compromising their mental faculties for their own entertainment. when is a person expected to be sober? and how dare anyone place the burden of sobriety upon them.

farren, i think the sliding grey scale can give me liscence to murder if i can persuade enough over to my line of thinking. perhaps we have no obligation to society as a participant within it. i can understand that better in a world without moral absolutes. is that what you imagine we live in?

Jobar · 05-05-2003, 08:43 PM

It is impossible, and I think positively immoral, to try to live one's life so as to be always at the disposal of others. Your primary responsibility is to yourself; if you do not take care of #1, you will rapidly become unable to help anyone else. (That's why Jesus' admonition to sell all you have and give it to the poor is such a terrible idea; then you are poor, and in need of help!)

Because of this, I sometimes use various intoxicants to unwind. Properly used, recreational drugs should re-create you; they should relieve the stress and pressure life has piled upon you, thereby enabling you to go forth and live more fully; first for yourself, and then for the society around you.

I know from experience and observation that anything- drugs, food, sex, or posting on discussion boards (

)- can be over-done. But, in moderation, I think that all those things can be beneficial and life-affirming.

fatherphil · 05-05-2003, 08:51 PM

jobar, can all narcotics be used in moderation? and let me add that if this was how we smoked pot, why aren't we still smoking the $10 an ounce crap that got this whole thing started?

meritocrat · 05-06-2003, 02:04 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by fatherphil
how is it moral or immoral to use drugs (including alcohol) to recreationally alter ones state of mind?

Someone taking narcotics does not infringe on your rights. Apart from being 'offended' you possess no real claim to frown on it.

05-05-2003, 08:43 PM	#48
Jobar Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: secularcafe.org Posts: 9,525	It is impossible, and I think positively immoral, to try to live one's life so as to be always at the disposal of others. Your primary responsibility is to yourself; if you do not take care of #1, you will rapidly become unable to help anyone else. (That's why Jesus' admonition to sell all you have and give it to the poor is such a terrible idea; then you are poor, and in need of help!) Because of this, I sometimes use various intoxicants to unwind. Properly used, recreational drugs should re-create you; they should relieve the stress and pressure life has piled upon you, thereby enabling you to go forth and live more fully; first for yourself, and then for the society around you. I know from experience and observation that anything- drugs, food, sex, or posting on discussion boards ()- can be over-done. But, in moderation, I think that all those things can be beneficial and life-affirming.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-05-2003, 12:11 PM	#42
beth Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: where orange blossoms bloom... Posts: 1,802	OK, phil. As usual, I misread the posts. Well, I'm not too into recreational drug use. I cannot stop people from using, but it's not for me. But I will drink. I don't see anything wrong with that as long as I'm not drunk and I've quit doing that...

05-05-2003, 12:59 PM	#43
fatherphil Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: burbank Posts: 758	i know, i've seen you drunk. its quite a spectacle

05-05-2003, 08:41 PM	#47
fatherphil Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: burbank Posts: 758	forget everest, what if they are on the toilet? how can they help then? but if you are climbing everest and you need help from someone you run across up there, you'd hope he was sober. but if you want to maintain that because folks are sometimes indisposed that justifies their compromising their mental faculties for their own entertainment. when is a person expected to be sober? and how dare anyone place the burden of sobriety upon them. farren, i think the sliding grey scale can give me liscence to murder if i can persuade enough over to my line of thinking. perhaps we have no obligation to society as a participant within it. i can understand that better in a world without moral absolutes. is that what you imagine we live in?

05-05-2003, 08:51 PM	#49
fatherphil Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: burbank Posts: 758	jobar, can all narcotics be used in moderation? and let me add that if this was how we smoked pot, why aren't we still smoking the $10 an ounce crap that got this whole thing started?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.