Drugs?

[Veritas]

Ok, so here is an argument. Can you please evaluate?

1. There is nothing immoral about smoking weed per se in moderation for sake of self pleasure. (in a vacuum)

2. Possession of weed is illieagal

3. There are risks associated with smoking weed that involve getting arrested or paying a fine

4. Getting arrested of paying a hefty fine could have a negative effect on one's higher values.

5. It is immoral to sacrifice a lower value to a higher value

6. Smoking weed is a lower value

7. Higher values could be affected by smoking weed.

8. If higher values are affected then smoking weed was immoral

Edited October 5, 2009 by Veritas

[DavidOdden]

1. False.

2. As an absolute, false but in normal contexts, true.

3. True in normal contexts

4. Arbitrary. You could imagine such a situation, but we see no evidence for this conclusion.

5. True

6. Huh? Since it's not a value, the question makes no sense. And "lower" implies a comparison -- to what?

7. See 4.

8. False ("affected" could be positive rather than negative)

The biggest weakness in your argument is the presumption that the fine from getting caught plus the likelihood of getting caught are actually unknown. If the fine is $50 and the chances of getting cause are 1 in 10,000 then the legal consequences would be negligible. You need to establish that the legal consequences are much more severe and you are very likely to get caught. In Ohio, the fine is less than $100 and the chances of getting arrested are negligible (if you're not stupid and give permission for a search).

[Dr Chiill]

Why is smoking marijuana immoral? I'm just curious.

Edited October 5, 2009 by Dr Chiill

[Veritas]

1. False.

2. As an absolute, false but in normal contexts, true.

3. True in normal contexts

4. Arbitrary. You could imagine such a situation, but we see no evidence for this conclusion.

5. True

6. Huh? Since it's not a value, the question makes no sense. And "lower" implies a comparison -- to what?

7. See 4.

8. False ("affected" could be positive rather than negative)

The biggest weakness in your argument is the presumption that the fine from getting caught plus the likelihood of getting caught are actually unknown. If the fine is $50 and the chances of getting cause are 1 in 10,000 then the legal consequences would be negligible. You need to establish that the legal consequences are much more severe and you are very likely to get caught. In Ohio, the fine is less than $100 and the chances of getting arrested are negligible (if you're not stupid and give permission for a search).

Thanks for for the response

1. Why is this false?

4. The evidence for this conclusion would be if a person has a family and they get arrested it could have negative psychological effect on the family members, specifically the children, or let's say that if a person has to pay a fine and the result is that they are unable to pay a utility bill and that utility gets shut off. If the higher value for that person is his family then that family was affected negatively unnecessarily and it was an unnecessary sacrifice of values.

6. I had in mind a family man and the value that a person has in having a family against the value of breaking an arbitrary law for the sake of self gratification.

For the sake of argument, assume that they chances of getting arrested are likely.

[Grames]

Ok, so here is an argument. Can you please evaluate?

1. There is nothing immoral about smoking weed per se in moderation for sake of self pleasure. (in a vacuum)

2. Possession of weed is illieagal

3. There are risks associated with smoking weed that involve getting arrested or paying a fine

4. Getting arrested of paying a hefty fine could have a negative effect on one's higher values.

5. It is immoral to sacrifice a lower value to a higher value

6. Smoking weed is a lower value

7. Higher values could be affected by smoking weed.

8. If higher values are affected then smoking weed was immoral

1. In a vacuum? You can't mean without air, so I take this to mean without context. But you must never drop context, that is like the first rule for thinking as an Objectivist. Weed could be moral or immoral depending on the context and your responsibilities.

5. Surely you wrote that backward? It is immoral to sacrifice a higher value to a lower value.

8. This is supposed to be a contradiction of 1? Since 1 is false, there is no contradiction. This whole presentation illustrates exactly why you cannot drop context and reach a conclusion safe from contradiction.

[DavidOdden]

1 is false as Grames said because it demands dropping context; it also assumes the hedonist ethics that man's purpose is pleasure. There are various arguments already posted here on the immorality of getting stoned / drunk -- destroying your consciousness is not an objective value.

Your assumptions w.r.t. 4 are marginal. The fact is that the chances of arrest are low and so is the penalty. A hypothetical scenario is not evidence -- show me the proof that if a man gets arrested for smoking dope it will damage the children psychologically. "Evidence" refers to facts, not hypotheticals and assumptions. Most people can afford the ticket and will not have their power turned off because of a reefer ticket. You're trying to construct a general argument, but it has to pass through this narrow mountain pass, so it really only applies to people who are barely eking out an existence. But then you missed a more obvious argument, that when you are just barely surviving, it is a perversion of hierarchical values to place getting ripped ahead of sheltering your family. This is a totally convincing argument, but it only applies in the context of extreme poverty.

Edited October 5, 2009 by DavidOdden

[Castle]

You may want to rethink you assessment regarding weed being immoral all the time. The context given was in moderation, not full on stoned off your ass. I see this as no different than drinking in moderation. I don't smoke weed, nor would I say its a particularly wise practice, but I rarely drink either. One can destroy consciousness with all kinds of substances that are not only pleasurable in moderation, but are necessary in moderation. Weed isn't one of the necessary things, but it seems easily possible to achieve values and thrive if it is used moderately, as it is possible to drink socially. Peikoff has stated one of his favorite foods is vodka, and I seriously doubt he has been destroying his consciousness.

Just because man's purpose is not pleasure doesn't mean that an action taken in moderation for the sole purpose of pleasure is immoral. Recreation is not hedonism.