Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

The Morality of Alcohol

Rate this topic


nimble

Recommended Posts

DavidOdden, the difference between "getting drunk" and "being drunk" is of no consequence in the context of this discussion. Why on earth are you accusing me of trying to "change history?"
Because your original post was clearly visible to you on that page, and you had to be able to see what you actually said. Why on earth would you change your wording when it was right in front of you? The honorable thing to do would be to have admitted your error and say "I meant to say 'chosing to get drunk is immoral". Do you understand the nature of moral evaluation, and why being drunk is not immoral? If you think that being drunk is immoral, you should explain your concept of morality, and why in your morality being drunk is immoral. In the context of this discussion, this distinction is entirely relevant.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 231
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Someone who drinks alcohol with the intention of getting tipsy/drunk/blotto is deliberately choosing to obliterate their ability to reason and function -- truly, what could be less moral than that?

Many things are less moral than that. If I get drunk at a bar, then walk home and go to bed, I've done nothing morally wrong. On the other hand, if I get drunk and start picking fights or go home and beat my wife, then that is immoral. Just the fact that I'm drunk, by itself, is perfectly moral. The only time it can cross the line is if I start to violate the rights of those around me.

And please don't compare getting drunk with the effects of some medicines -- in the case of, say, NyQuil, the intent is to relieve overwhelming cold/flu symptoms, NOT to obliterate one's consciousness.

There are many types of medicine designed not just to "relieve some symptoms" but to completely obliterate your consciousness, as you phrased it. Have you ever been to the emergency room? I was at one time and in the ambulance they pumped me full of morphene. That substance completely obliterated my consciousness far, far more severely than alcohol. And that was exactly the intent of the paramedics who gave it to me. Are you saying now that if I consume a substance with the goal of "obliterating my consciousness" then it is immoral?

In my case there was a perfectly moral reason to give it to me, even though my mind was basically gone while I was on it. It was not like NyQuil where you just relieve a few symptoms, it was much stronger than that.

Maybe I'm not completely understanding your point, but it sounds to me like you are saying that relieving a headache is ok but if your mind is gone while you are on it then it is immoral. Am I correct?

Edited by skap35
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only time it can cross the line is if I start to violate the rights of those around me.

You might want to rethink this. Immorality (in Objectivist terms) also relates to harming one's self. Harming others is not required.

Many things are less moral than that.

Objectivism holds that rationality is man's highest virtue. The destruction of that virtue would in turn represent the greatest immorality. One way of "destroying" one's rationality is by getting drunk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That substance completely obliterated my consciousness far, far more severely than alcohol.

The problem with getting drunk (see my definition ) is that it does not suspend your consciousness, but it does suspend your volition. You keep on moving, perceiving the world around you, and reacting to things, but you are no longer in control of yourself; you are guided by your reflexes like an animal is. A man who finds this state of mind desirable is a man evading the basic requirement of his life as a rational being.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many things are less moral than that. If I get drunk at a bar, then walk home and go to bed, I've done nothing morally wrong.

I agree with the comments that Rational Cop and Capitalism Forever have made on this.

If you are walking home merely because your reaction time and motor skills have been impacted in a minor sort of way and you are otherwise in full control over yourself and your actions - that may very well be the case that you have done nothing morally wrong. But if you are staggering or if you speech is slurred and you are a pathetic mass of walking emotions - then what you have done is very much immoral. It is definitely true that many things are less moral than that. But so what? The fact that torturing little puppy dogs and setting people's cars on fire is less moral does not somehow make getting drunk any more moral.

One of the things which makes drunks particularly obnoxious is the way that they are guided strictly by their emotions. Different people react different ways to alcohol. In some people, the emotionalism is nasty, angry and even violent. Other people become loud and roudy. Others become sickenly maudlin and mawkish. In all cases, such people are obnoxious to virtually anyone present who is not similarly blitzed and are quite pathetic. Whenever I see someone I know in such a state, my respect for the person cannot help but take a major hit.

Because alcohol has such an effect on certain people's emotions, there are contexts where one might be able to make the case that its use in limited quantities might have a value. Those who are high strung or who are repressed might find having a drink or two helps them "relax" and makes them less shy in social contexts. But anyone who uses alcohol for such purposes has a moral responsibility to know how it effects them and at what point they need to stop additional consumption. And, since alcohol impairs one's judgment, the time to make that decision as to when to stop is NOT when one is at that point - assuming by then he is even capable of recognizing it - but before one even takes the first sip. To the degree that a person's drinking is guided by his emotions and not a fully conscious decision exercised in a responsible manner, the behavior is not moral.

There are many types of medicine designed not just to "relieve some symptoms" but to completely obliterate your consciousness, as you phrased it. Have you ever been to the emergency room? I was at one time and in the ambulance they pumped me full of morphene. That substance completely obliterated my consciousness far, far more severely than alcohol. And that was exactly the intent of the paramedics who gave it to me. Are you saying now that if I consume a substance with the goal of "obliterating my consciousness" then it is immoral?

There is a huge moral difference between obliterating one's consciousness as a means to a medically necessary end as opposed to doing it as an end in itself or because it gives a person a cheap thrill.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You might want to rethink this. Immorality (in Objectivist terms) also relates to harming one's self. Harming others is not required.

Objectivism holds that rationality is man's highest virtue. The destruction of that virtue would in turn represent the greatest immorality. One way of "destroying" one's rationality is by getting drunk.

I agree with what you said about destruction of rationality. But there is a big difference between destroying rationality and temporarily impairing it. Someone who is drunk will regain their ability to think rationally in a few hours. So I would hardly consider drunkeness as complete destruction of your ability to think rationally.

One of the things which makes drunks particularly obnoxious is the way that they are guided strictly by their emotions. Different people react different ways to alcohol. In some people, the emotionalism is nasty, angry and even violent. Other people become loud and roudy. Others become sickenly maudlin and mawkish. In all cases, such people are obnoxious to virtually anyone present who is not similarly blitzed and are quite pathetic. Whenever I see someone I know in such a state, my respect for the person cannot help but take a major hit.
I lose respect for people in this state, too. But just because I lost respect for them doesn't mean they did anything immoral.

There is a huge moral difference between obliterating one's consciousness as a means to a medically necessary end as opposed to doing it as an end in itself or because it gives a person a cheap thrill.
I was actually responding to a comment made by davidmsc. It sounded to me that he was making the claim that any time you intentionally "obliterate your consciousness" it is immoral. I was merely giving an example of a case where everyone would probably agree that it was perfectly moral. Edited by skap35
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with getting drunk (see my definition ) is that it does not suspend your consciousness, but it does suspend your volition. You keep on moving, perceiving the world around you, and reacting to things, but you are no longer in control of yourself; you are guided by your reflexes like an animal is. A man who finds this state of mind desirable is a man evading the basic requirement of his life as a rational being.
I have no personal knowledge of the referent of this definition: it occurs to me that some people (like myself) may be physically incapable of getting drunk, in your sense. It is true that in my life (decades ago), I have had so much to drink that I did the big spit, got unfocused and went to sleep, but I've never experienced an actual loss of volition -- I didn't think it was possible for a human to be conscious and perceive the world, but also have no volition. You're right about how important definitions are, but in this case I don't think it's correct, in that the state referred to when people say "he's drunk" isn't just "he has no volition", but "his mental faculties are impaired by alcohol to some extent". What that extent is, it's hard to say, but I think people usually mean "so that he's acting differently than he would if he had not had a drink".
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But there is a big difference between destroying rationality and temporarily impairing it.

I guess I'm saddled with the experience of seeing too many people on a nightly basis who suffer life long consequences for "tying one on". Then again, that "life long" ended that night for many folks.

You stick with temporarily impairing it, and I'll stick with destroying it.

I don't see the "big difference" your talking about. However, In every really important sense, I don't really have to worry about it so much because I don't get drunk (or even drink at all for that matter). I only have to deal with the idiots who do.

Edited by RationalCop
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess I'm saddled with the experience of seeing too many people on a nightly basis who suffer life long consequences for "tying one on". Then again, that "life long" ended that night for many folks.
Are you talking about people who drive under the influence, or things like people getting liquored up and shooting their ex-wives or thinking "Pretty window, wonder if I can smash it with my head"? I think those sorts of people have deeper psychological problems anyhow, where their sense that these are immoral acts is very shallow so that the least relaxation of inhibitions lets the rotten inner core come spilling out. (And I'm sorry for insulting your customers). Here's a good example of how the morality of getting drunk is contextual. If you (accurately) know your character and can control yourself so that you would not drive drunk or shoot anyone under the influence, then it's not automatically immoral to get drunk. But if you know you are weak-willed enough that you would drive drunk or would get obnoxious and shoot someone, then knowing that fact, it would be immoral to get drunk.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You stick with temporarily impairing it, and I'll stick with destroying it.

Agreed. Alcohol, like all other substances that impair our ability to grasp reality, is immoral. As Ayn Rand wrote, man's "basic vice, the source of all his evils, is that nameless act which all of you practice, but struggle never to admit: the act of blanking out, the willful suspension of one's consciousness." (Atlas Shrugged, p. 935)

In the years since I first encountered Objectivism, not one ounce of alcohol has passed my lips.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a good example of how the morality of getting drunk is contextual. If you (accurately) know your character and can control yourself so that you would not drive drunk or shoot anyone under the influence, then it's not automatically immoral to get drunk. But if you know you are weak-willed enough that you would drive drunk or would get obnoxious and shoot someone, then knowing that fact, it would be immoral to get drunk.

Yeah, I agree. I dont understant the cultural myth we have where alcohol is meant to be some sort of queer magical potion which turns people into completely different entities. If you are a sane and fairly well balanced individual, then you arent going to start shooting random people just because youve had a few drinks. Perhaps if you already have aggressive tendencies then alcohol may heighten them, but its silly to make absolute statements like 'alcohol makes people do X'. Ive never had much of a problem controlling myself on alcohol, and I'd guess that most of the arguments people are using in this thread are based on induction from a biased, uncontrolled N < 50 sample size, which isnt particularly meaningful.

Edited by Hal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I refer to this sentence when faced with a question like whether to drink or not, "The only reason to do one thing over another is if it will better serve your overall happiness." I think the answer lies in the individual, and depends on personal values and personal circumstances. I see no universal moral evaluation on this issue sans the person to whom it applies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www3.district125.k12.il.us/chemmatt...2_t/850208t.pdf

Yeah, I agree. I dont understant the cultural myth we have where alcohol is meant to be some sort of queer magical potion which turns people into completely different entities. If you are a sane and fairly well balanced individual, then you arent going to start shooting random people just because youve had a few drinks.

That is what is known in the rigorous discipline of logic as a "red herring." Can you cite any credible anti-drinking advocate making such a claim? The fundamental evil of alcohol is what I've previously stated:

  • Alcohol, like all other substances that impair our ability to grasp reality, is immoral.

There are innumerable scientific studies that support my claim, which by the way, is implicitly endorsed by John Galt ("Man's basic vice, the source of all his evils, is that nameless act which all of you practice, but struggle never to admit: the act of blanking out, the willful suspension of one's consciousness." Atlas Shrugged, p. 935)

For the record:

  • Alcohol depresses certain inhibitory centers in the cerebrum, leading the drinker to feel free of
    social constraints and self-restrictions. The drinker may feel more competent and skillful than usual when, in fact, he or she is less competent. The alcohol also depresses the ability to perform physical tasks, especially those that require conditioned reflexes. Tasks for which people have tested poorly under the influence of alcohol include target shooting, typing, mountain climbing, and driving. http://www3.district125.k12.il.us/chemmatt...2_t/850208t.pdf

And should you choose to partake in the evil of consciousness suspension, please do not suppose that on this Ayn Rand forum it will not go unrebuked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And should you choose to partake in the evil of consciousness suspension, please do not suppose that on this Ayn Rand forum it will not go unrebuked.
If an anaesthetist suspends one's consciousness for the duration of an operation, I assume thats okay? So, should we not refine the principle from "thou shalt not suspend thy consciousness", to something that has a qualifier of some kind?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you talking about people who drive under the influence, or things like people getting liquored up and shooting their ex-wives or thinking "Pretty window, wonder if I can smash it with my head"?

By "drunk people" I'm not referring to the person who can drink one or two drinks and are still capable of exercising reasonable judgement. In fact, the manner in which I would use the term drunk would be mutually exclusive of a person who has still maintained his ability to exercise rational judgement. I'm not referring to any arbitrary legal limit like .o1 BAC. I'm talking specifically about an altered state of perception and judgement where otherwise intelligent and rational individuals get stupid. I don't agree that this necessarily requires that a person otherwise have some emotional or mental issues or be weak-minded.

I'm referring to sloppy, stupid, impaired judgement folks, some of whom live for the weekend to get "sh*t-faced", or otherwise live in general to get intoxicated. They don't necessarily have to wrap their cars around telephone poles and kill themselves this time, they may simply wake up the next morning on their bathroom floor wrapped around their toilet wondering how they got there. I'm talking about anyone who is surrendering what should be their greatest virtue, their rationality, for a couple of hours of "everything's funny". As a friend of mine says, it's all fun and games until the blood starts flowing.

I'm not asking for anyone to agree with me and if anyone is unpersuaded by my position, I'm okay with that. I don't care if anyone claims my view is biased. I use my judgement of morality to guide my behavior and actions and I accept the consequences. I have plenty of acquaintances who range from "having a couple after work" to getting drunk in the manner I have referred. As a general guideline, I will not hang around with them if they are going to consume alcohol at all except maybe a wine at a dinner or something. I do not like being around drunk people although their stupidity can be enormously humorous sometimes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By that statement you have boldly declared yourself to be an adversary of Ayn Rand's stance against mind-altering substances. I shall report you to the moderators and have you removed from future posting.

The subject of whether BlackSabbath knows his limits aside, I hope you're kidding.

But suppose you're serious: Are you claiming that John Galt never enjoyed a drink? (Not that he never got drunk, which is a fair assumption)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In fact, the manner in which I would use the term drunk would be mutually exclusive of a person who has still maintained his ability to exercise rational judgement.
I think this is a good standard, and has to be kept in mind in discussing the morality of alcohol consumption. Ethanol does not automatically block the faculty of making a rational judgment. But it will at some point -- don't get to that point.
I'm talking specifically about an altered state of perception and judgement where otherwise intelligent and rational individuals get stupid.
Which can also be "in meetings", inter alios.
I'm referring to sloppy, stupid, impaired judgement folks, some of whom live for the weekend to get "sh*t-faced", or otherwise live in general to get intoxicated.

...

I'm talking about anyone who is surrendering what should be their greatest virtue, their rationality, for a couple of hours of "everything's funny".

...

I'm not asking for anyone to agree with me and if anyone is unpersuaded by my position, I'm okay with that.

Well, as it happens, I agree with this position. Correct identification is essential, and this is a correct identification. The issue is not some neo-puritanical anti-life decision that alcohol in any amount is intrinsically evil, it's really about the purpose of an action. Drinking to get drunk is immoral; enjoying a glass of wine with dinner or a dram of Lavagulin at the local is moral, because it enhances life. That 5th dram probably crosses the line.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And should you choose to partake in the evil of consciousness suspension, please do not suppose that on this Ayn Rand forum it will not go unrebuked.

You've been here three hours and you're presuming to dictate forum policy AND speak for everyone ELSE here? Who died and made you Queen of Sheba? Frankly, that's just abusive. You may want to do some reconsidering if this is your idea of contributing to a discussion.

You do know that Ayn Rand smoked, right? Nicotine is a FAR more powerful poison than alcohol, which is why you take it in such ridiculously small doses. Caffiene in pure form is similarly strong; a fiction author I know of used it as a poison applied to daggers because one scratch will cause seizures and heart failure.

Like David, I don't get "drunk" in any real sense. The WORST impaired I've ever been was on a New Year's when I decided to get a bottle of champagne and no one else wanted any, so I ended up finishing it myself. I get a little giggly, which also happens when I have sugar or caffiene, btw, and if things get quiet I may drift off to sleep. That's it. I can still perform high-dexterity tasks with perfect ease. Well, that and I'm almost six foot tall and heavily built, so it takes a ridiculous amount of alcohol to produce any noticeable effect.

Now, if anyone were to ask me why I drank a bottle of champagne, or why I order a glass of wine or a mixed drink with my dinner, I would tell you: I like the taste. I'm especially fond of a good Johannesburg Riesling or a chocolate-coconut steamer. It does not taste the same without the alcohol. There is a huge difference between champagne and sparkling grape juice. I consider the slight impairment to simply be a noteworthy consequence of my enjoyment of alcoholic beverages: namely something I need to watch out for, just like eyestrain is a consequence of the hours I work at a computer.

Frankly, my enjoyment of cheese and bacon have probably had more deleterious effects on my health than alcohol, and if you think I'm giving those up you'd best be prepared to remove a greasy fork from your eyesocket. So much for alcohol being immoral.

As for whether drunkenness is moral or immoral: it has been my personal choice to avoid it because I don't consider any of the stories I've heard to even remotely resemble "fun"; frankly, I have better things to do with my time and money. Since I have better things to do, giving them up would indeed be immoral. If you don't have better things to do, I think you need a hobby. I mean, think back on every time you got drunk (by your own standards) did you really benefit because of it? Or were you sick and dumb, with a nasty hangover the following morning, having spent quite a bit of money for essentially nothing? (You don't buy beer, you only rent it.)

If your answer is the latter, you would benefit from changing your habits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By that statement you have boldly declared yourself to be an adversary of Ayn Rand's stance against mind-altering substances. I shall report you to the moderators and have you removed from future posting.
Jim, this is not HPO, and unlike Skirv, management is not inclined to tolerate policy-violators. Read the rules, please. Things are civilized here, so I urge you to dial it back and think carefully about the accusations you make here.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd like to get this discussion back onto the topic. after dealing with whether the origional poster is avoiding being honest about his grammar or what people are allowed to say, id like to sum up a few sentiments ive noticed that i believe to be most rational.

It is critical to understand that taking a drink/bite of anything isnt in and of itself immoral. the origional poster didnt attempt to imply this. It is instead in the intent or desire of the partaker that there must be guilt or innocence. i would refer readers to page 1155 of Atlas Shrugged (plume edition 1999) where John Galt drinks Brandy after his recent torture, having it offered to him by Hank Reardon and Ragnar Daneskjold. But i assure you that his intent was not to get drunk. a desire to get drunk as an evasion is inherantly immoral because it does not add to a person's ability to live effectively on this planet. reason is his tool of survival and only means to happiness, and an evasion of the use of this tool is anti-life. drinking with your friends out of a desire of enjoying their company more fully hardly qualifies. i personally do not drink and plan not to. any lessening of my consciousness is something i do not desire, though i do not go so far as to claim the immorality of anything but its abuse. but then, the etymology would demand that.

"It is not any crime you have ever committed that infects your soul with permanent guilt, it is none of your failures, errors or flaws, but the blank-out by which you attempt to evade them. ... fear and guilt are your chronic emotions, they are real and you do deserve them, but they dont come from the superficila reasons you invent to disguise their cause, not from your "selfishness," weakness or ignorance, but form a real and basic threat to your existence: fear, because you have abandoned your weapon of survival, guilt, because you know you have done it volitionally."

[Galts Speech, FNI, 221; pb 176]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed. Alcohol, like all other substances that impair our ability to grasp reality, is immoral. As Ayn Rand wrote, man's "basic vice, the source of all his evils, is that nameless act which all of you practice, but struggle never to admit: the act of blanking out, the willful suspension of one's consciousness." (Atlas Shrugged, p. 935)

In the years since I first encountered Objectivism, not one ounce of alcohol has passed my lips.

I would like to know how you get from that quote to: "alcohol is immoral". Cigarette smoking is immoral on these same grounds as it impairs the olfactory thus impairing the grasp of reality. Or our we picking out certain senses as preferable, or senses vs. reasoning? I would like to know how relaxing with some drinks (while enjoying a game, reading (hopefully something light), while playing poker (is that immoral as well?)) is an impairment of one's ability to grasp reality. Granted that past a certain point that quote does enter the context and one blanks out facts and concedes to impair one's functioning.

You equate anything below the level of full, 100% focus as evasion. Relaxing is a form of lowering one's level of mental functioning. Sometimes on Saturday afternoon I have such a satisfying meal that I find myself absently daydreaming drowsily on the couch for awhile, much more "impaired" than a six pack of beer would make me in different circumstances (such as relaxing to a good selection of Beethoven-that actually suggests wine, but let's not get all technical). Is that immoral? If you have a definate "yes" or "no" answer here, then you have a problem of reasoning.

That problem is judgement without context, i.e., evaluation without facts. That would mean an intrinsic interpretation of morality. X is wrong, period, in any circumstance, at all times. Those are catagorical imperatives, not reasoned moral choices.

i would refer readers to page 1155 of Atlas Shrugged (plume edition 1999) where John Galt drinks Brandy after his recent torture, having it offered to him by Hank Reardon and Ragnar Daneskjold. But i assure you that his intent was not to get drunk.

No page numbers here. He also shared one with Dagny and Fransisco in the valley when she was still a scab. Dagny, Wyatt, and Rearden shared one after the first run on the John Galt line.

Also, one of Roark's best friends in The Fountainhead, Mike, downed five beers with Roark after work one day. Five! The hooligan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i would refer readers to page 1155 of Atlas Shrugged (plume edition 1999) where John Galt drinks Brandy after his recent torture,

Dang, I was hoping to catch him by pointing out that Galt and co had enjoyed wine with their dinner in Atlantis. But the jig is up now, I suppose.

So the very character on which this rationalistic view is supposedly based, drank alcoholic beverages, not only for relief, but also for pleasure. I don't know how much more QED this can get...

[edit: oh, I see Thoyd Loki got that one, too! And others to boot!]

Edited by Inspector
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...