Selling illegal drugs

[CWEarl]

Is the sale of meth, heroin, PCP etc (by you) to junkies a virtuous activity that advances your higher values and ultimately your life?

Certainly not.

What objective value does such activity support?

I wasn't trying to suggest there was objective value to the activity, only that I have no problem with others taking part in it - unless (of course) this activity interferes with my rights (ie: my property is stolen to fund heroin, there is a gun fight between dealers in the street, etc.).

[DavidOdden]

Certainly not.

I conclude that you have no problem performing a moral evaluation. You recognize evil.

I wasn't trying to suggest there was objective value to the activity, only that I have no problem with others taking part in it - unless (of course) this activity interferes with my rights (ie: my property is stolen to fund heroin, there is a gun fight between dealers in the street, etc.).

I have a problem with "having no problem". I suppose my biggest problem is that I don't know what that means. For example, if you're saying that you won't be psychologically tormented if some other people (strangers, I will assume) wish to self-destruct, then that is rational. However, every person is a potential value -- a could-be trader who could have offered you something. It is proper to recognise that loss, but then get on with your business. So what exactly do you mean when you say you have no problem with someone aiding in this destruction of value?

[JeffS]

I already answered that, in this thread.

http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p...st&p=230444

No, you didn't answer it directly, and referencing it again won't change that. But I'll take your answer to be, "No, selling illegal drugs is not immoral, at least, when someone is selling illegal drugs to me. If they're not selling a drug I take, then it's immoral."

Doesn't matter if it's marijuana or meth, Jake, it's still an illegal drug.

To the question: "Is it immoral to sell illegal drugs?" the proper answer is: "It depends. It could be moral. It could provide people with something they value, that serves their lives. It could help them to live longer and happier lives." Yet, when I give that answer I get roasted and accused of playing "word games." Interesting. I suppose I've broken some unwritten rule here at OO.

Your refusal to read other people's posts is becoming tiring. Stop hijacking threads with nonsense, please. There are at least half a dozen things you said in this thread, that are antithetical to Objectivism, and yet you're claiming to be an Objectivist, and answering people's questions as an Objectivist.

I've read your posts, among many others. Without any evidence whatsoever you accuse me of not doing so. What's really becoming tiring is your inability to engage people without believing you know everything, then hurling ad hominem attacks at them when they prove you do not.

When you have evidence of me: 1) writing anything antithetical to Objectivism in this thread, or 2) claiming to be an Objectivist, or 3) answering people's questions as an Objectivist I'll be eager to see it.

Learn about concept formation, and definitions, please, before you answer people's questions while claiming to be an Objectivist.

Gee, thanks for the advice, Omniscient One. While you're compiling the evidence above, perhaps you can find the evidence of my misapplication of the concept "context."

Learn the limits of your own understanding before someone else airs them out for you. It'll save you, and them, a great deal of time.

[CWEarl]

I conclude that you have no problem performing a moral evaluation. You recognize evil.

Indeed.

I have a problem with "having no problem". I suppose my biggest problem is that I don't know what that means.

I was vague, yes.

For example, if you're saying that you won't be psychologically tormented if some other people (strangers, I will assume) wish to self-destruct, then that is rational.

That is basically what I mean. I trade with people of value. The rest are no concern of mine. They are and remain strangers as they have no worth.

However, every person is a potential value -- a could-be trader who could have offered you something. It is proper to recognise that loss, but then get on with your business. So what exactly do you mean when you say you have no problem with someone aiding in this destruction of value?

You've basically nailed it. I do recognize the loss, but consider it of little personal consequence.

Meanwhile, I only wanted to state that self-destructive behavior of others is of no interest to me so long as it remains with the self. To paraphrase Howard Roark, if asked what I think of the users of illegal drugs, I'd say that I don't think of them. I am not concerned with potential traders, only with actual traders.

[Jake_Ellison]

When you have evidence of me: 1) writing anything antithetical to Objectivism in this thread, or 2) claiming to be an Objectivist, or 3) answering people's questions as an Objectivist I'll be eager to see it.

1). The following statements contradict Objectivism.

In these, you are simply refusing to acknowledge (or you are not aware of) Objectivist Ethics:

I don't understand how someone offering a product for sale has anything to do with another person's decisions. ...Whether taking the drug performs the same function for the buyer is a moot point in determining the morality of the seller.

Drugs enable people to live longer, more enjoyable lives.

Selling them provides a value to those who value them.

Here, you are beginning to ignore Objectivist Epistemology, namely concept formation, by calling an application of Rand's method of forming concepts (differentiation and integrastion, etc.), arbitrary, and then proceeding to ignore it completely. I have seen no evidence that you understand, even partially and in practice, how to properly define abstract concepts. You are constantly rationalizing and context-dropping instead:

Drugs serve one purpose: alter the body's chemistry. Doesn't matter if it's aspirin or cocaine. To argue the former's standard is "could be misused," but the latter's standard is "if used is misused" is arbitrary.

Here, you deny the existence of the trader principle, and continue to claim the refusal to pass moral judgement as a virtue:

Your argument seems to be that the seller must take into account the use to which the drug should be used. If it is going to be used by the buyer to destroy their lives, then the seller would be immoral in selling it. In essence, you're arguing the seller's morality is determined by the moral decisions of the buyer. I can't imagine how this is supported in Objective literature.

And now, the statement that denies the very essence of Objectivist Ethics, it being objective and based on one specific reality:

How would selling illegal drugs contradict the trader principle? I think you stopped short in your emphasis of Ms. Rand's quote; the final prepositional phrase, "... by their own independent judgment" is important. It specifies that both buyer and seller are independent in their estimation of what is beneficial to them. The seller can't judge what is best for the buyer, only what is best for himself.

Indeed, morality and rights cannot be juxtaposed. This alone is enough proof that you don't understand the basics of Objectivism:

Uhhh, no, it is not news to me. I'm not sure what your point is. What have I profoundly confused? Are you arguing morality and rights cannot be juxtaposed as I did?

And finally, you are continuing to not realize the difference between a properly defined concept and rare instances of it that are atypical and omitted in the process of concept formation, in accordance with some very specific methods Ayn Rand defines in her Epistemology:

David, you began your participation in this thread by asking, "In what way is drug selling moral?" I provided ways in which drug selling was moral. You, yourself, provided a way in which drug selling, even illegal drug selling, was moral.

2). Yes, you did claim to be an Objectivist, and you did hijack a thread in which someone was trying to learn about Objectivism, under false pretenses, claiming all the nonsense above is the Objectivist position:

Well, that really puts the vast majority of the population morally off limits to us Objectivists, doesn't it?

P.S. All the above is not what bothered me, I am wrong quite often, so is almost everyone here, about many things in Objectivism. What bothered me is the fact that you became offended because people corrected you, instead of considering their arguments more carefully.

Edited September 23, 2009 by Jake_Ellison

[Pawns4Mons]

Illegal Drugs are a Product and they have a Market. It dosn't matter if the person using them are John Crackaddict or a High Cost Surgeon looking for a way to steady his hands. They are a product, how could it be immoral to sell somthing that has legitimate value?. The buyer offers a Product and people either buy it or they don't, why should the trader be blamed for anything when he is just doing business. The People who buy his drugs have a choice. Anything they do should be Their Problem.

Edited September 23, 2009 by Pawns4Mons

[RationalBiker]

Illegal Drugs are a Product and they have a Market. It dosn't matter if the person using them are John Crackaddict or a High Cost Surgeon looking for a way to steady his hands. They are a product, how could it be immoral to sell somthing that has legitimate value?. The buyer offers a Product and people either buy it or they don't, why should the trader be blamed for anything when he is just doing business. The People who buy his drugs have a choice. Anything they do should be Their Problem.

A man walks into a gun store and tells the sales guy, "I need a Glock 19 so I can go blow Pawns4Mons' head off". The clerk says, "That'll be $550." Is there a problem with the salesman selling the gun to the man when the salesman has some knowledge of what he intends to (or will) do with it? The gun is just a product after all.

[Pawns4Mons]

A man walks into a gun store and tells the sales guy, "I need a Glock 19 so I can go blow Pawns4Mons' head off". The clerk says, "That'll be $550." Is there a problem with the salesman selling the gun to the man when the salesman has some knowledge of what he intends to (or will) do with it? The gun is just a product after all.

The buyer has the right to refuse sale. If he knows someone is going to buy a gun to kill me he could refuse selling it to him. Drugs are in the same category as Tobacco and Alcohol they destroy Your body and nobody else's. I'm sure people who sell ciggaretes know that they are bringing a death upon the buyer but it is just a product that he is selling

[DavidOdden]

They are a product, how could it be immoral to sell somthing that has legitimate value?...

The People who buy his drugs have a choice. Anything they do should be Their Problem.

You are confusing morality and proper-legality. Properly, it should be legal to sell, buy and use all sorts of evil self destructive drugs. It is also immoral to do so. Not all immoral actions are properly illegal. "Price" is not the same as objective value, which can only be determined by integrated reference to one's ultimate goal.

[Jake_Ellison]

They are a product, how could it be immoral to sell somthing that has legitimate value?

That's a loaded question, since it assumes that illegal drugs generally have real value to someone (you don't metion the valuer though). That's a false assumption, usually illegal drugs are not a legitimate value to the buyer.

[Pawns4Mons]

You are confusing morality and proper-legality. Properly, it should be legal to sell, buy and use all sorts of evil self destructive drugs. It is also immoral to do so. Not all immoral actions are properly illegal. "Price" is not the same as objective value, which can only be determined by integrated reference to one's ultimate goal.

But the buyer Chooses to buy the drugs. Why should the trader stop him?.

It's in the buyers individual happiness to purchase his drugs.

The previous example of one person wanting to buy a $100,000 lunchbox. He should be allowed to buy it if the seller is willing to sell. In the most simple form; making the selling of drugs illegal is forcing the market to not sell a product with demand, and that has worse results than any drug could do.

[Pawns4Mons]

usually illegal drugs are not a legitimate value to the buyer.

Well they must have some value, the illegal drug market is worth Billions of Dollars and has plenty of demand.

Sorry for the double post

Edited September 23, 2009 by Pawns4Mons

[RationalBiker]

The buyer has the right to refuse sale. If he knows someone is going to buy a gun to kill me he could refuse selling it to him.

Sure, he could refuse, but he doesn't morally have to refuse the sale, right? He's not in any way responsible for what the man does with the gun, right? The gun is just a product.

[DavidOdden]

Why should the trader stop him?.

Why should you be selling dope in the first place?

It's in the buyers individual happiness to purchase his drugs.

Happiness is the result of reaching your goals. Dope goes not create happiness.

The question of legality is irrelevant. It is a given in the context of an Objectivist forum that the government should not use force to prevent the sale of drugs. The issue at stake is whether drug use of sale is moral. It is immoral, because it contradicts man's nature and the ultimate purpose of existence qua man.

Again, you are confusing morality and proper-legality.

[RationalBiker]

It's in the buyers individual happiness to purchase his drugs.

Oh, that's happiness I see on the faces of crack addicts and meth heads on the street. I'm not sure how I confused that with weariness and desperation. They must be going for that purple and brown splotched-skin look.

Edited September 23, 2009 by RationalBiker

[Pawns4Mons]

Sure, he could refuse, but he doesn't morally have to refuse the sale, right? He's not in any way responsible for what the man does with the gun, right? The gun is just a product.

I have heard so many news reports. "Video Games make people violent", "Guns made the Columbine incident possible", "Smoking Kills people". Why is all the blame being directed to the people who sell Video games, Guns and Ciggaretes?. PEOPLE kill PEOPLE. Instead of banning every product that can cause harm and force the market into somthing that isn't a free market We should be focusing on why these incidents happen.

Overprotective parents who dont let their children flourish and instead hide them from their true potential causes "Video Games to make people violent"

Flawed School systems and and even more flawed moral social structure cause "Guns being the cause of Columbine"

and... well smoking just kills you no two ways about that

The reason most of these "Bad" products are labeled "Bad" is because of how the people use them. A Perfect Textbook Objectivist Society would not be 100% rid of these problems but they would not be in such alarming numbers. Guns could be sold for other means than killing me and drugs could be sold for recreational use.

EDIT: Yes i know Drugs wont create happiness even if thats whats in your head as a belief but I still think they should be legal. Alot of things can make people unhappy but if they are a product that has value i.e (the ability to be traded, Bought and Sold or Consumed) then they should be given a fair chance in the market

Edited September 23, 2009 by Pawns4Mons

[RationalBiker]

I have heard so many news reports.

That's nice but I'm not talking about banning anything or making anything illegal. Would you answer the question I posed to you; If the seller has knowledge of the intended use of the gun (to kill you), is he still absolved of moral culpability if he sells the gun to the guy anyway? You would be perfectly okay with the gun seller selling the man the gun, correct?

Edited September 23, 2009 by RationalBiker

[RationalBiker]

EDIT: Yes i know Drugs wont create happiness even if thats whats in your head as a belief but I still think they should be legal. Alot of things can make people unhappy but if they are a product that has value i.e (the ability to be traded, Bought and Sold or Consumed) then they should be given a fair chance in the market

David has mentioned it twice now, and you still seem to be missing it. No one is talking about whether or not drugs sales should be LEGAL. We are discussing the MORALITY of illegal drug sales not the LEGALITY.

Do you understand the distinction between the moral and the legal and how they are not the same thing?

[Pawns4Mons]

Do you understand the distinction between the moral and the legal and how they are not the same thing?

I'm reffering to whether or not the LEGALITY should be based on MORALITY or not when in relation to the market

EDIT: Okay perhaps my high ambitions of a truly free market are clouding my judgment.... The law is basicly a code of Morals, (it's immoral to do X so don't do X). Illegal Drugs are a clear violation of Objectivist Ethics with only one exception: Weed.

Edited September 23, 2009 by Pawns4Mons

[DavidOdden]

EDIT: Okay perhaps my high ambitions of a truly free market are clouding my judgment.... The law is basicly a code of Morals, (it's immoral to do X so don't do X). Illegal Drugs are a clear violation of Objectivist Ethics with only one exception: Weed.

Partly cloudy giving way to sunshine. The point is that the law is a specific and restricted kind of moral code -- immoral acts that are so immoral, in a specific way, that the government will use force to stop such acts. Other immoral acts are frowned on.

Of course we can debate the morality of weed separately, but there are plenty of threads on that topic already.

[Pawns4Mons]

I apologize if I strayed from Objectivist Ethics. Im only on my 4th day as an Objectivist

So would weed be a frowned upon thing or is it accepted?

[DavidOdden]

So would weed be a frowned upon thing or is it accepted?

Well, I think the right question is whether it's good or bad; potential frowns follow from that. A beer is a great thing, and a couple of beers is good. Three beers is okay, and four might be acceptable. A six pack is bad. (Personally, I think beer is plain bad if it's Bud Lite). The correct answer to the classic debate is "Tastes Great". However, the effects of ethanol are a clear down side. So, the general rule of thumb for beer drinking is, drink the number of beers that has negligible effect on your consciousness. Do not get wasted.

The thing with weed is that is never tastes good, and all it does is gets you wasted. Getting wasted is not a rational value: it destroys your ability to reason and function as a human. Since it doesn't advance your life one iota, and does detract from life qua man, it isn't good.

[themadkat]

Well, I think the right question is whether it's good or bad; potential frowns follow from that. A beer is a great thing, and a couple of beers is good. Three beers is okay, and four might be acceptable. A six pack is bad. (Personally, I think beer is plain bad if it's Bud Lite). The correct answer to the classic debate is "Tastes Great". However, the effects of ethanol are a clear down side. So, the general rule of thumb for beer drinking is, drink the number of beers that has negligible effect on your consciousness. Do not get wasted.

The thing with weed is that is never tastes good, and all it does is gets you wasted. Getting wasted is not a rational value: it destroys your ability to reason and function as a human. Since it doesn't advance your life one iota, and does detract from life qua man, it isn't good.

I think many musicians would argue that weed has been a great boon to their careers. In all seriousness though, there is some limited evidence that weed can improve creativity in some regards and give you a particular kind of focus over the short term.

But my intent here is not to hijack the thread, and as I'm sure David would be happy to remind me there are already tons of threads that address this very topic that you can look up yourself. I guess I just wanted to show there is not consensus on this issue.

And in case anyone asks, no I don't use weed and have no interest in doing so. I just don't think it's a particularly bad thing, but it is not a particularly good thing either.

[DavidOdden]

I think many musicians would argue that weed has been a great boon to their careers.

Yeah, well, I've heard their music -- and . There's a standard line that many people use to justify using weed, that it "helps them relax". What I wanna know is, what is wrong with them that they can't relax without getting wasted?

[JeffS]

1). The following statements contradict Objectivism.

In these, you are simply refusing to acknowledge (or you are not aware of) Objectivist Ethics:

Where, in Objectivist ethics, is the argument that one's morality is dependent upon another's decisions laid out? And please try to wrap your head around the fact that I'm not arguing we should not judge what is moral for ALL men, nor am I arguing we shouldn't judge what is moral for any one man. As I've pointed out time and time again, I'm arguing we cannot, and are under no moral obligation to, judge what is in another's self-interests. To presume so is to presume we can structure their values for them. How do you know I don't value Scooby-doo lunchboxes more than I value $100k? The answer is: you don't, you can't possibly, and you're under no obligation to do so. Your morality is not dependent upon my morality. If it does, then Obama has it right and health care is a moral obligation because he can structure our values so that others are more important than ourselves.

Here, you are beginning to ignore Objectivist Epistemology, namely concept formation, by calling an application of Rand's method of forming concepts (differentiation and integrastion, etc.), arbitrary, and then proceeding to ignore it completely. I have seen no evidence that you understand, even partially and in practice, how to properly define abstract concepts. You are constantly rationalizing and context-dropping instead:

What reasoning allows one to assert: Using cocaine is misuse? (Hint: Pay careful attention to sentence structure.)

Here, you deny the existence of the trader principle, and continue to claim the refusal to pass moral judgement as a virtue:

Neither accusations are true, and thus not proved by the text you quoted. I'll ask again: Where does Objectivist literature lay out the argument that one's morality is dependent upon the decisions of others?

And now, the statement that denies the very essence of Objectivist Ethics, it being objective and based on one specific reality:

Where, in the Trader principle, or anything written by accepted scholarly experts of Objectivism, is it demonstrated that one trader must judge what is in the best moral interests of the other. How does the statement, "The seller can't judge what is best for the buyer, only what is best for himself," deny objectivity or one specific reality? Does the only reality we have enable us to innately know each others' values?

Indeed, morality and rights cannot be juxtaposed. This alone is enough proof that you don't understand the basics of Objectivism:

Hmmm, that's interesting.

"A 'right'is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context."

"'Rights' are a moral concept—the concept that provides a logical transition from the principles guiding an individual’s actions to the principles guiding his relationship with others—the concept that preserves and protects individual morality in a social context—the link between the moral code of a man and the legal code of a society, between ethics and politics."

- Ayn Rand

And finally, you are continuing to not realize the difference between a properly defined concept and rare instances of it that are atypical and omitted in the process of concept formation, in accordance with some very specific methods Ayn Rand defines in her Epistemology:

I've acknowledged, continuously and from the beginning, that there are typical and atypical instances of illegal drug selling. Since the question I was addressing was: "In what way is drug selling moral?" I provided ways in which drug selling, even illegal drug selling, is moral. As with any product, selling illegal drugs is moral if it serves a moral purpose. The OP did not place constraints upon his question, so I answered in that vein.

What's really funny is you want to claim the "typical" use of drugs makes their sale immoral, therefore the proper answer to the OP's question is: selling illegal drugs is immoral. You then throw out "atypical" uses of drugs and decree them moral with no more justification than, "it just relaxes and cheers me up. Moderate ammounts don't do more than moderate ammounts of alcohol, and there are fewer side effects (loss of balance, hangover, plus alcohol sometimes makes my stomach hurt)." Which amounts to, "It makes me happy and doesn't make me feel as bad as other drugs." Your logic equates to no more than, "Selling illegal drugs is immoral, but selling illegal drugs is moral." You then have the temerity to accuse me of ignoring typical and atypical uses, then lecture me on proper Objectivist principles. Yeah, that's a real Objectivist for you - finds his happiness in the bottom of a bong and bases his conclusions upon his feelings.

Finally, I would like to know the reference in Objectivist literature with the assertion that any part of a concept can be omitted in its formation. I'm not talking about simple differentiation, because that's not what you're asserting. You're asserting that we can ignore characteristics of a concept simply because there are only a few cases of the concept having those characteristics.

The Conceptual Common Denominator in the concept "illegal drugs" is not "causes people to destroy their lives." Nor is it: "drugs Jake thinks are okay and takes." The CCD in "illegal drugs" is: drugs outlawed by the state. It says nothing about use, amount, effect, or anything you want to ascribe to it.

2). Yes, you did claim to be an Objectivist, and you did hijack a thread in which someone was trying to learn about Objectivism, under false pretenses, claiming all the nonsense above is the Objectivist position:

A flippant remark for a ridiculous assertion that recieved more than it was worth. If you truly believe the Trader principle dictates one must only deal with those who do not practice evasion, then that precludes the vast majority of the population as trading partners since the vast majority of the population practice evasion. A point you predictably ignored.

For the record, I am not an Objectivist. I prefer to use reason and logic to find answers to my questions rather than simply parrot someone else's conclusions. Since you're so good at the latter, I'll be glad to recognize you as the High Priest of "the Objectivist Position." If this forum were for "the Objectivist position," then every thread would be two posts long and end with, "Read the works of Ayn Rand."

P.S. All the above is not what bothered me, I am wrong quite often, so is almost everyone here, about many things in Objectivism. What bothered me is the fact that you became offended because people corrected you, instead of considering their arguments more carefully.

I did not become offended at all. I considered everyone's arguments and responded to them civily; which is something completely beyond you.