Is Objectivism against drugs?

[Aquila]

Can you please explain further what the above statement means?

On hindsight, that doesn't make much sense to me either

Well, I just began applying Objectivism today, and i've been reading and studying a lot for the last few days, my mind is all jumbled.

[Felix]

Ahem, okay. Where is the difference, then? I don't see it.

[Inspector]

Ahem, okay. Where is the difference, then? I don't see it.

Aside from all of the negative consequences of all intoxicating substances? For the sake of argument?

The joy of art is from the recognition of a value; a life-affirmation. It is a "spiritual" joy (I use the term "spiritual" in the same sense as Ayn Rand did; meaning the mind and values).

The pleasure of drugs is a physical pleasure and nothing more. No values are affirmed or achieved. If the drug did not intoxicate, it would be the equivalent of tasty food, not art.

But the truth is that drugs do intoxicate and often do much worse things, depending on the drug. Whatever benefit gained would have to make up for quite a bit in order to be a value. For cancer patients, you might have an argument. For regular people who aren’t in terrible, unbearable and unavoidable pain, then drugs just make you a stoned hippie loser.

Frankly, the fact that all "recreational" drugs make you into a moron for the duration of the intoxication should be enough of a deterrent to most healthy, rational people.

[RationalBiker]

On hindsight, that doesn't make much sense to me either

Well, I just began applying Objectivism today, and i've been reading and studying a lot for the last few days, my mind is all jumbled.

I'm glad you have an interest in the philosophy. I can relate to having my mind "jumbled" a bit in the beginning as well.

While metaphysical facts are important in determining right and wrong, as we must properly interpret what those facts are and how they relate to our self-interests, it is that context of one's knowledge of those facts that is ALSO integral to determining the right and wrong of one's actions.

This article may help you in your understanding; Fact and Value.

I think that any "mind-altering" thing (be it music, paintings, movies, drugs, whatever ...) that has that effect is a good thing. (Given, of course, that you don't get addicted)

I have to ask, in what sense is music, art and movies "mind-altering"?

[Felix]

Okay, the comparison with food makes sense. But what makes the pleasure of art so distinctively different? And why isn't physical pleasure life-affirming? As I already said, I have no knowledge whatsoever of Objectivist Aesthetics. But this distiction makes no sense to me.

I have to ask, in what sense is music, art and movies "mind-altering"?

Well, you are in a different state of mind when you've seen a good movie. If you've seen 'The Shawnshank Redemption' or 'The Edge', I think you know what I mean. At least for me, these movies change the way I feel for the rest of the day. Same goes with good music and in rare cases art. I think that my Shawnshank-quote made my point clear.

And my drug experience wasn't different on principle. It was just more intense.

[softwareNerd]

Felix, All that is "mind altering" is not good. I assume you'll agree. If we assume that one is speaking of drug-usage in doses that do not have other detrimental physical effects, and if I read between the lines to the situation you're referring to, then I'd see the difference between art and drugs as follows:

Art might show you that there is good in the world and therefore that you can act and acheive happiness; knowing this itself makes you happy. Drugs show you nothing, they simply trick your physical mind into the feeling of happiness.

Even "good" drugs have to be used with this understanding. For instance, suppose a person is depressed. If the depression is a result of some biological factor that is not induced by depressing circumstances, then drugs may be the only way out. On the other hand, if depression is caused by something non-biological, then one needs to tackle the real world. To the extent that the drug causes you not to act to correct the real problem, it might be working agaisnt your long-term interest.

[Felix]

Even "good" drugs have to be used with this understanding. For instance, suppose a person is depressed. If the depression is a result of some biological factor that is not induced by depressing circumstances, then drugs may be the only way out. On the other hand, if depression is caused by something non-biological, then one needs to tackle the real world. To the extent that the drug causes you not to act to correct the real problem, it might be working agaisnt your long-term interest.

I agree. If you think that the only way to achieve happiness is through drugs, then this is not okay. That's an addiction of some sort, too.

Art might show you that there is good in the world and therefore that you can act and acheive happiness; knowing this itself makes you happy. Drugs show you nothing, they simply trick your physical mind into the feeling of happiness.

Here I disagree. Drugs show you directly that a feeling of happiness exists. That you are capable of feeling good. This is way more convincing than any art. Art is like reading that there is something called happiness. If you have no direct experience, you can also think that happiness is just something Hollywood has invented. A myth you tell little children so that they do their homework.

But once you have had the direct experience, there is no doubt possible. You know it.

[RationalBiker]

Well, you are in a different state of mind when you've seen a good movie. If you've seen 'The Shawnshank Redemption' or 'The Edge', I think you know what I mean.

No, I have absolutely no idea what you mean. I see no valid comparison between those experiences.

When I see a movie, or hear a piece of music, my reaction to it is based on my conscious evaluation of it's content. I have control over what I choose to accept as valuable, and what I choose to reject. The movie has NO affect on me per se, my evaluation has an affect on me. At any point during the movie, it is my choice to continue experiencing the movie, or getting up and leaving.

When you insert chemicals in your body, they affect your thinking and judgement in ways you CANNOT control, that affect being dependent upon the particular chemical and the particular amount. They have physiological affects on your body that you cannot control. You can't "get up and leave" from drug effects. You are surrendering variable amounts of control over you life to chemical effects when you use drugs.

No matter how bad a movie is, it won't kill me. Bad drugs can.

Here I disagree. Drugs show you directly that a feeling of happiness exists. That you are capable of feeling good. This is way more convincing than any art.

1) You sound like you are stating that drugs have cognitive ability. They do not.

2) You sound like you are ascribing intrinsic value to the power of drugs over art. This is false.

All that drugs do is have physiological effects on your body. I find it difficult to accept that any evaluation of life experienced through drugs can be any more reliable than any evaluation of life through a healthy objective mind.

Edited January 20, 2006 by RationalCop

[Felix]

First of all, I've been capable of reproducing that drug feeling without drugs several times. So it's not the chemical ingredient that does it. It just helped me experience it in the first place.

1) You sound like you are stating that drugs have cognitive ability. They do not.

2) You sound like you are ascribing intrinsic value to the power of drugs over art. This is false.

All that drugs do is have physiological affects on your body. I find it difficult to accept that any evaluation of life experienced through drugs can be any more reliable than any evaluation of life through a healthy objective mind.

I don't understand what you mean by 1) and 2)

The reason you think this is because you believe that there is no link between a drugged mind and a clean mind. That you can't access the state of the drugged mind without drugs. That's wrong. Why do you think that the state of mind you are usually in is more "natural" or healthy than the state you reach accidentally by taking a drug. There are people out there whose "natural" state is one of depression and it's not caused by biological factors. Here the medical (controlled) use of marijuana shows tremendous positive results.

[Inspector]

For the nature of art and the kind of pleasure it gives, I recommend The Romantic Manifesto. The pleasure of art is distinctly different from other kinds of pleasures and the specifics of this difference is outlined very well in this inexpensive book.

Edited January 21, 2006 by Inspector

[RationalBiker]

I don't understand what you mean by 1) and 2)

I don't know how to state them any clearer, they are not difficult or complex sentences.

The reason you think this is because you believe that there is no link between a drugged mind and a clean mind.

Are you sure you know my history with respect to drug or alcohol use? Are you positive that I haven't experienced a "drugged" mind vs. a "clean" mind, and that I draw part of my conclusion from that? You are making an erroneous assumption.

That's wrong. Why do you think that the state of mind you are usually in is more "natural" or healthy than the state you reach accidentally by taking a drug.

Since I didn't use the term "natural", I won't address that. Since I have first hand experience and plenty of vicarious experience (by means of observation) of "drugged" minds vs. healthy minds, I can draw legitimate conclusions as to which of the two are more reliable for interpreting reality.

There are people out there whose "natural" state is one of depression and it's not caused by biological factors. Here the medical (controlled) use of marijuana shows tremendous positive results.

So, you think the depressed mind is a "healthy, objective mind"? I reiterate that I did not use the term "natural".

[RationalBiker]

Here the medical (controlled) use of marijuana shows tremendous positive results.

Another point regarding this statement. The context of this discussion has been the recreational use of drugs. Medically prescribed use of drugs is an entirely different beast. It's been my experience that doctor's usually prescribe drugs to people to address health deficiencies. They rarely, if ever, prescribe medicine to address a lack of a health problem. Of course, if your doctor is taking a few hits of acid before diagnosing your illness...

Let me just say, as far as I'm concerned, you can insert anything you want to into your body as long as you assume the full consequences of your resulting actions. If you ever feel "less than zero", enjoy.

But what you're not likely to do is convince me that this is better off than having a mind that can proper ly indentify reality without the need for chemical assistance. My drug use was only beneficial in the sense that I was able to realize that I could be happy and fully functional without the use of drugs, and the negative side effects were costly.

[Felix]

This is getting way out of hand. I really don't intend to annoy anyone here. All I wanted to state is that for recreational purposes it doesn't matter if you use drugs reasonably, eat a juicy steak or watch a good movie (or maybe all three of it at once). As long as you don't have side-effects because of controlled use I see no difference. Yes, once you are on drugs, you are not capable of handling heavy machinery. But you don't intend to work during your free time. This is time off. You don't use heavy machinery (or perform brain surgery) while watching a movie or eating a steak. If you intend to just take it for the sake of the feeling it gives you, I see no problem whatsoever with doing it. I don't say that you should be drugged all the time or that while being drugged you are more capable of living. All I was saying was that a controlled drug experience without side-effects can show you a feeling of happiness which you can then pursue in your real, sober life which, you said, is an experience you share. And I think that art and good food serve the same purpose. And the reason why I don't give art a special place here could be because I have no idea of Objecitivist Aesthetics simply because I don't have any interest in the arts and thought it wasn't necessary.

Maybe I didn't state all that correctly.

[edit]

The funny thing is: I only smoked marijuana once years ago and haven't touched it ever since.

Edited January 21, 2006 by Felix

[softwareNerd]

All I was saying was that a controlled drug experience without side-effects can show you a feeling of happiness which you can then pursue in your real, sober life which, you said, is an experience you share. And I think that art and good food serve the same purpose.

Does a good meal give you a feeling of happiness that you can pursue in your "non-food life"? Is this something you've actually experienced, or are you presenting a hypothetical. I think it can, but could you provide some more details of how this has worked for you in the case of a good meal.

[Felix]

Now food is really a basic thing. Usually this is nothing special. But sometimes when I have a good steak I have to think: It's cool to be alive. Maybe that's because I do the BBQing myself and I get the meat just as I like it. But then: I have that feeling when eating out, too. It's just enjoying mere existence. And eating good food is a way to do it. What it does is show you immediately that living is something worth doing. That life is enjoyable. And that's a feeling that stays with me for quite a time and makes life more enjoyable in general. That's what I mean. I need some form of physical pleasure once in a while. After all, I am a living being. And since I don't have the money for lots of luxurious food, good food is something special to me, and so I celebrate it. Not doing so, to me seems like pointless ascetism. I don't see any sense in diminishing the value of simple innocent physical pleasures.

[softwareNerd]

Thanks. I now have a better understanding about what you say of food.

You say your experience with drugs is limited. However, from that limited experience, did you find it produced the same feeling as a good meal does, and the same motivation that stays with you for some time? I haven't found that to be the case with the typical recreational drugs that I've tried, but I'd be interested to know if there's a difference in what you experienced.

[JMeganSnow]

Most of what I've heard from people that use recreational drugs (like speed, especially), is that they aren't motivated to pursue alternate means of achieving the feeling; they're motivated to take more drugs. The drugs are a shortcut, which eventually precludes them pursuing any actual goals.

That is the danger, and a very real one, because the accurate perception of a drug-induced high is not "I could be this happy if I turned my life around" but "I could be this happy if I had another hit." What does pleasure without a corresponding accomplishment to induce it benefit you? You've simply detached means from ends, which is no way to live as a successful human being.

Marilyn vos Savant once said something similar about gambling, that she opposes it because if you lose money, it's a very poor way to spend it, and if you make money, it's a very poor way to "earn" it . . . you learn nothing that would enable you to repeat the result. Much better to spend your time and money on starting a business or other venture: if you fail at that, you learn many valuable lessons for the next time around, so you only stand to gain.

I was once depressed, and I was medicated for it and sent to therapy, repeatedly. It never did any good (in fact, I think it just made things worse). Eventually I had to fix my problems as best I could by myself. The experience left me with a deep distrust of anyone claiming a quick-fix solution to unhappiness.

There are no shortcuts.

[Felix]

You say your experience with drugs is limited. However, from that limited experience, did you find it produced the same feeling as a good meal does, and the same motivation that stays with you for some time? I haven't found that to be the case with the typical recreational drugs that I've tried, but I'd be interested to know if there's a difference in what you experienced.

For me this feeling was something I have never had before. For the first time of my life I had a feeling that living is good. I just lay there in the grass looking at the sun and felt good. I never felt that way before. I always had to do something, was always under some sort of stress and pressure. Never just happy, always looking for more. I never stopped to appreciate the simple fact that I am alive. I never felt that living as such is something positive. I then made two choices: To appreciate living more, now that I knew that it was possible and not to take that drug for a long long time. One person even said that I had changed and that by basic sadness was gone. She was right.

As Jennifer correctly stated, drugs are a shortcut to good feelings. And the problem of just wanting more drugs instead of searching for something that gives you that feeling in real life is very real.

But food, too, is such a shortcut. And funny movies. My conclusion here is: As long as you have your life straight, there is no problem with taking shortcuts on occasion. They help. But they only do so if you take them as proof that life in general can provide happiness and not that the only way is drugs.

[Inspector]

This is getting way out of hand. I really don't intend to annoy anyone here. All I wanted to state is that for recreational purposes it doesn't matter if you use drugs reasonably, eat a juicy steak or watch a good movie (or maybe all three of it at once).

Sorry, I'm still annoyed by that because it isn't true. Recreational drugs are not the equivalent of a steak or a good movie (no matter how much the food nazis try to tell you how bad steak is).

Your single experience with them does not change the fact that they are bad. It is possible for a man to play a game of Russian Roulette and not die, and then go on to realize the precious value of his life and never do something that stupid again. He could rightly say that it changed his life for the better, and made him realize the beauty of life. (and even that it made him feel good, from the adrenaline) But that doesn't make Russian Roulette good. It doesn’t mean that it’s harmless if one is “rational” about it. It means that you got lucky.

[Felix]

Sorry, I'm still annoyed by that because it isn't true. Recreational drugs are not the equivalent of a steak or a good movie (no matter how much the food nazis try to tell you how bad steak is).

Your single experience with them does not change the fact that they are bad. It is possible for a man to play a game of Russian Roulette and not die, and then go on to realize the precious value of his life and never do something that stupid again. He could rightly say that it changed his life for the better, and made him realize the beauty of life. (and even that it made him feel good, from the adrenaline) But that doesn't make Russian Roulette good. It doesn’t mean that it’s harmless if one is “rational” about it. It means that you got lucky.

I really put a lot of context around that statement. In fact, taking a drug like marijuana once is less harmful than getting drunk once. And smoking dope once a month is also better than getting drunk once a month. Of course it is better not to do both of this at all. But to make such a fuss about some drugs, especially when they are used with the avoidance of bad effects in mind, really makes no sense to me. You can't compare my drug experience with russian roulette, because my life wasn't even remotely in danger at that time. Actually the relaxed state I was in for weeks was more likely to be beneficial to my health.

And there's a difference between someone who smokes a cigarette once a month and a five-packages-a-day chain smoker. The dose makes the poison. Of course it is more healthy not to smoke at all. But it's also more healthy not to eat chocolate at all and I still do it once in a while without any negative effects. If the benefit is way higher than the cost (which is practically zero), what's the problem? As long as you don't overdo it and put your mind at risk, recreational drug use is ok.

Oh, I almost forgot: I love my steak!!! And I know that it's healthy!!! That makes it even better!

I just had to say that.

[Hal]

You cant really compare drugs to food. Most drugs have cognitive effects in the sense that they change the way you think to some degree, which a good meal cant do. Even a drug like ecstacy which mainly produces a 'feeling' rather than 'altering consciousness' (these are really horrible terms, but I'm limited by language here) still has pretty significant effects on your personality and (to a lesser extent) evaluation of the world. And in terms of pure 'feeling', its not really comparable to a good meal either; an orgasm would probably be a better direct comparasion in terms of the intensity and enjoyability of experience (and even that falls short imo). Also, food generally doesnt have bad side-effects unless you eat too much of it, while even in moderation, some drugs can still have negative effects.

I think the comparasion to art is valid to some degree. After watching (for instance) a really good film, its likely that you'll be in a pretty good mood for the next few hours and will see the world slightly differently. While this mood change might have been initiated by a conscious response to values, its still sustained as a result of chemical changes in your brain. Drugs just change the brain directly without bothering about the intermediary of your mind.

edit: I dont think the word 'happyness' is the correct one to use in reference to what you can experience on drugs, or from food. Happyness isnt really a 'raw feeling', its more of an attitude or mental state. Pleasure would probably be a better term, or perhaps euphoria, contentedness, or something similar (depending on the particular experience).

Edited January 21, 2006 by Hal

[Felix]

Food is a drug. If you eat too much sugar, your insulin level rises, lowering your bloodsugar distinctively. This will make you unconcentrated. If you eat lots of protein, your testosterone level rises. This makes you more aggressive. A drug is more like functional food. You take certain ingredients and eat them in massive doses to maximise their effect. And a healthy diet is beneficial to your mental functioning.

[Inspector]

If the benefit is way higher than the cost (which is practically zero), what's the problem? As long as you don't overdo it and put your mind at risk, recreational drug use is ok.

No, I don't agree. The "benefit" is fake and disgusting. The idiotic state you are put into is enough of a cost to outweight it. I don't even have to factor in all the risks to your brain chemistry or addictive effects. Your claims that it can be "okay" in "moderation" are false. Enough to get you "high" is too much. As soon as you're intoxicated, then the dose is high enough to be viceful.

[EC]

Being that alcohol should be considered a drug, is there anything objectively immoral about having a few beers at the end of the day? I'd say no, because it simply slows you down a little bit without inhibiting your mental capacities much if at all.

[Inspector]

Being that alcohol should be considered a drug, is there anything objectively immoral about having a few beers at the end of the day? I'd say no, because it simply slows you down a little bit without inhibiting your mental capacities much if at all.

I'd say that if you drink enough to become intoxicated, then it's no good. Everyone has to know their limit. Obviously one or two beers won't be a problem for most.