Selling illegal drugs

[RationalBiker]

How do you know I don't value Scooby-doo lunchboxes more than I value $100k?

What you don't seem to acknowledge is that even if you value Scooby-doo lunchboxes more than you value $100K, that still may not be in your rational self-interest, and that there may be facts available to another person which allow them to recognize that a person is not acting in their rational self-interest. Just because one values something does not mean that value is rational, objective or in one's self-interest.

Your argument basically boils down to this; morality is subjective and not objective. In a system of objective morality, one person CAN (and should) determine if another person is actually acting in their own self-interest IF they have enough knowledge of the context.

Your morality is not dependent upon my morality.

Are you talking in re Objectivism or in re JeffSism? According to Objectivism (in part) it is even if only being connected by the concept of justice.

The answer is:

... you can and should given enough information in a given context, at least according to Objectivism. I pointed that out to you in that quote.

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.

This is another indication that you do not see the integration of Objectivism as a whole philosophy. Here you don't consider that according Objectivism the government does not have a right to rob us of our money in order to provide services inconsistent with a proper government. You are simply providing an improper analogy in which in one case one is refusing to do business with someone with a case in which one forces another to do something.

I think the main problem seems to be that you look at Objectivism as separate little pieces and do not see how they fit together as an integrated whole, i.e. the trader principle is separate from objective morality and our obligation to judge others, the Trader Principle is separate from the concept of justice, Objective ethics is separate from proper government functions, etc.

For the record, I am not an Objectivist.

That would have been my guess.

I prefer to use reason and logic to find answers to my questions rather than simply parrot someone else's conclusions.

Hmm, that's what Objectivist's are supposed to do as well. Interesting that you present a false dichotomy between Objectivism and the use of logic and reason. Referring someone to read a particular piece of work is not telling the to parrot anything. You are making the assumption that just because someone may agree with Objectivism that they did not process what they read through a critical evaluation and come to their own independent agreement with what the material. That's a pretty common mistake though so you are not alone.

I'll leave you with this quote;

PLAYBOY: Can't Objectivism, then, be called a dogma?

RAND: No. A dogma is a set of beliefs accepted on faith; that is, without rational justification or against rational evidence. A dogma is a matter of blind faith. Objectivism is the exact opposite. Objectivism tells you that you must not accept any idea or conviction unless you can demonstrate its truth by means of reason

Edited September 24, 2009 by RationalBiker
Added Playboy quote

[Andrew Grathwohl]

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.

I think his point was that if there is any legitimate use for any product, then the morality of sale needs to go on a case-to-case basis.

Also, is there no legitimacy to the argument that making these substances, no matter their potential for vice, is a craft in itself? I see no difference between somebody who wishes to spend his life perfecting the craft of high quality cocaine cultivation and somebody who wishes to spend his life perfecting the craft of high quality handgun construction. Both have high potential for immoral activity, but both also have legitimate uses. To not recognize these facts would be to not recognize the productive achievement of that individual.

[Jake_Ellison]

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

That is true, if you don't subscribe to Objectivist Ethics. But I can know that in the case of an Objectivist, because I can know reality, and a proper value system is based entirely on reality. What I do know about reality is that it would be irrational for a person to value a lunchbox over a significant portion of their wealth.

So I don't know what you value, all I know is whether something you value is rational or not. If it is not, I won't knowingly take advantage of your irrationality as a usual course of action, that would be immoral, for reasons too complex to explain here, but reasons which are an integral part of Objectivism. A trader should deal with men who make rational decisions. You don't have to be an Objectivist to make rational decisions, and you don't even have to be an Objectivist to recognize if someone is making a rational decision or not.

What you have to be an Objectivist for is recognizing that you shouldn't deal with those who make irrational decisions, such as junkies. Unless you're a genius, you probably won't be able to independently and fully explain why it is wrong and detrimental to your self interest to sell drugs to junkies, you will have to read Ayn Rand's explanation as to why that is. What you nevertheless might be able to do, and what most people are able to do without being Objectivists, is sense that it is wrong, meaning that they have a sense of life that helps them know that this is the wrong thing for honest men to do. I was never an altruist before finding Objectivism, I was always quite selfish, and I can assure you that I always knew that it would be wrong to sell drugs to a junkie, even if he isn't a friend or acquaintance, just a fellow human being, because the source of my profit would be his stupidity, not my work. I was raised that way, without my parents knowing about Objectivism, which later confirmed that I indeed should earn my living the way my parents taught me.

I think his point was that if there is any legitimate use for any product, then the morality of sale needs to go on a case-to-case basis.

No, I don't think he took up the Pragmatist's position, he preferred to deny that a decision can be made about the morality of a drug sale completely, simply because one can't know why their business partner wants those drugs.

But you did, so here's the answer: We can easily identify the fundamental nature of a career in dealing illegal drugs, and advise anyone interested against it, based on Objectivist principles, universally, not just on a case by case basis.

Edited September 24, 2009 by Jake_Ellison

[JeffS]

What you don't seem to acknowledge is that even if you value Scooby-doo lunchboxes more than you value $100K, that still may not be in your rational self-interest, and that there may be facts available to another person which allow them to recognize that a person is not acting in their rational self-interest. Just because one values something does not mean that value is rational, objective or in one's self-interest.

Then wouldn't that mean my morality is dependent upon whether another acts rationally? Doesn't that require me, if I want to follow my moral code, to determine what is rational for another? If so, then that really puts morality at a disadvantage since so few people are rational. My value of Scooby-doo lunchboxes may not be rational, but it also may be. How can one trader, acting in their own, independently judged, self-interests determine what is in another's independently judged self-interests?

Your argument basically boils down to this; morality is subjective and not objective. In a system of objective morality, one person CAN (and should) determine if another person is actually acting in their own self-interest IF they have enough knowledge of the context.

Objective morality does have a certain degree of subjectivity. At its basest level, a man must first choose life. If life is chosen, he can only live as his nature, as a man, requires him to live in an objective reality. After that, he is free to choose his own value hierarchy while still remaining objectively moral. His value hierarchy is subjective; what comes below his own life and his own happiness is up to him.

If I value a joint every once in a while, and I know it won't reduce my ability to live life as a man, that it will actually increase my enjoyment of my life, then what can possibly be immoral in smoking? What is the underlying principle making illegal drugs immoral? Is it the fact that they are illegal? No, that's rightly discarded. Is it the drug itself? I suppose that's possible (I don't know all the drugs), but I would venture the vast majority of illegal drugs have some application where the drug serves life. What else is there? There's nothing in the nature of illegal drugs which make them immoral.

Their use may be immoral, but that's the case with every product known to man. If we're going to argue illegal drugs are immoral because some choose to use them to destroy their lives, then we'll have argue everything is immoral because some choose to use them to destroy their lives. If we're going to argue illegal drugs are immoral because most use them to destroy their lives, then that narrows the field a bit, but we'd still have to include things like cigarettes and Big Macs.

Are you talking in re Objectivism or in re JeffSism? According to Objectivism (in part) it is even if only being connected by the concept of justice.

Can you explain what you mean here? Even with the concept of justice, my morality won't change based upon your morality. If your morality says it's okay to take my property, my morality will remain steadfast in asserting it is not okay to take my property, and I can objectively prove it is not. I can still judge that you are objectively immoral, but your immorality doesn't make me immoral. If it were the case that dealing with immoral people makes one immoral, then we're all immoral because we all deal with immoral people - people who do not have an objective morality.

... you can and should given enough information in a given context, at least according to Objectivism. I pointed that out to you in that quote.

I've agreed with this from the beginning. Does the concept "illegal drugs" come with its own, built-in context? I've been arguing, "No, it does not." Yet it seems many believe it does.

This is another indication that you do not see the integration of Objectivism as a whole philosophy. Here you don't consider that according Objectivism the government does not have a right to rob us of our money in order to provide services inconsistent with a proper government.

I didn't bring in force at all. I fully understand the Objectivist stance on the use of force. My point was only that, using the logic that's been presented so far, Obama would be correct in asserting we have a moral obligation to provide others with healthcare (and whatever else he values more than human life). The argument used so far is that one's morality is dependent upon the choices, the values, of another. Well, Obama believes he's operating from a correct moral code, that he has the right values. To argue his morality determines my morality is to argue he would be correct in asserting I'm immoral; that his morality has just a much validity as mine. He's choosing my values for me, and labeling me immoral when I don't agree with him. If I can label a drug user, or a lunchbox buyer, as immoral simply because I would choose to do something else with the money, then I'm setting his values for him just as Obama is trying to set my values for me.

I think the main problem seems to be that you look at Objectivism as separate little pieces and do not see how they fit together as an integrated whole, i.e. the trader principle is separate from objective morality and our obligation to judge others, the Trader Principle is separate from the concept of justice, Objective ethics is separate from proper government functions, etc.

I don't see that at all. What I love about Objectivism is its integrated nature. It needs some work to become even more integrated (a thorough ontology would help), but it's the greatest advance in philosophy for perhaps thousands of years precisely because it is so integrated and Rand didn't shy away from addressing the questions which other philosophers brushed aside, leading to their disjointed and convoluted philosophies.

Hmm, that's what Objectivist's are supposed to do as well. Interesting that you present a false dichotomy between Objectivism and the use of logic and reason. Referring someone to read a particular piece of work is not telling the to parrot anything. You are making the assumption that just because someone may agree with Objectivism that they did not process what they read through a critical evaluation and come to their own independent agreement with what the material. That's a pretty common mistake though so you are not alone.

Which is why I don't call myself an Objectivist. I don't call myself anything except a human being; a label that includes everything necessary to impart how I interact with the world - through logic and reason. I don't make the assumption that all who call themselves Objectivists are mindless parrots. In fact, I came to this board with the assumption that the majority of posters would be rational, logical thinkers. Jake implies there's some "Objectivist position," some party line that needs to be presented, and anything contrary to that "position" is a misrepresentation of Objectivism. I like to believe it's exactly as Ms. Rand said, "... you must not accept any idea or conviction unless you can demonstrate its truth by means of reason."

There is no "Objectivist position." There is only logic and reason. Any assertion that such a thing exists is to parrot conclusions.

[JeffS]

That is true, if you don't subscribe to Objectivist Ethics. But I can know that in the case of an Objectivist, because I can know reality, and a proper value system is based entirely on reality. What I do know about reality is that it would be irrational for a person to value a lunchbox over a significant portion of their wealth.

I have a buyer already lined up willing to pay $150k for the lunchbox. You can't possibly know the circumstances of my situation unless you want to babysit me. I determine what is in my rational self-interests, not you, as the Trader principle requires. There is nothing in the Trader principle which requires one to only deal with people who make rational decisions. If that were the case, very few of us could morally trade with each other.

[Jake_Ellison]

I like to believe it's exactly as Ms. Rand said, "... you must not accept any idea or conviction unless you can demonstrate its truth by means of reason."

There is no "Objectivist position." There is only logic and reason. Any assertion that such a thing exists is to parrot conclusions.

I can demonstrate its truth by reason, and if I were to fail, someone else here could help me out.

Are you willing to first understand Objectivist Epistemology, so that you understand the process of integration and concept formation which is the basis for all of Objectivism, the "means of reason" you mentioned?

So far, you have not even acknowledged a single mention of the means of reason behind our arguments. This is the first time you mentioned means of reason, and you still haven't begun to show that you understand what it is. Instead, you did nothing but misuse and misunderstand it, and never acknowledged the attempts to correct you.

I have a buyer already lined up willing to pay $150k for the lunchbox.

Good for you, now all you have to do is convince me to join you in the immoral act of taking advantage of this buyer's irrationality. Good luck with that.

Edited September 24, 2009 by Jake_Ellison

[JeffS]

I can demonstrate its truth by reason, and if I were to fail, someone else here could help me out.

What "truth?" That there's an "Objectivist position?"

Are you willing to first understand Objectivist Epistemology, so that you understand the process of integration and concept formation which is the basis for all of Objectivism, the "means of reason" you mentioned?

So far, you have not even acknowledged a single mention of the means of reason behind our arguments. This is the first time you mentioned means of reason, and you still haven't begun to show that you understand what it is. Instead, you did nothing but misuse and misunderstand it, and never acknowledged the attempts to correct you.

If I'm as deficient in reason as you assert, then it should be easy for you to prove it. So far, you haven't.

Good for you, now all you have to do is convince me to join you in the immoral act of taking advantage of this buyer's irrationality. Good luck with that.

Why is the other buyer irrational? What do you know about him (or her) that I haven't provided?

You've nailed assumption down pat, Jake. You should move on to validating those assumptions with objective facts. Or would that be something the "Objectivist position" frowns on?

[Jake_Ellison]

What "truth?" That there's an "Objectivist position?"

Yeah, you just reached the end of my patience with that one. Nice talking to you.

Edited September 24, 2009 by Jake_Ellison

[RationalBiker]

Then wouldn't that mean my morality is dependent upon whether another acts rationally?

I've said this several times before, but it bears repeating one more time; your morality depends on your KNOWLEDGE of another person acting rationally. That is consistent with the examples I've given throughout. When you KNOW that the gun you are selling is going to be used to go shot up a school full of children, you can't just say "That will be $550 please" and sell the gun morally absolved of what the other person has told you he is going to do with the product you provided him. JeffSism may be fine with that, but the morality of Objectivism would not be.

How can one trader, acting in their own, independently judged, self-interests determine what is in another's independently judged self-interests?

By the observations and reasoning they use involving the facts of reality before their senses. That's what makes the morality objective. You may personally have a difficult time with this, but some folks do not.

What is the underlying principle making illegal drugs immoral?

Are you asking me a context-less question for which I have not made a general assertion? Are you confusing my argument with someone else's? Have you forgotten that I have acknowedged at least once that there may be exceptional cases?

but I would venture the vast majority of illegal drugs have some application where the drug serves life.

Venture away....

I didn't bring in force at all.

Oh yes you did. When you say Obama is right about his ideas on healthcare you are saying he is right that everyone should be taxed to provide a government-based healthcare system. Inherent in that is forced taxation. That is very much a part of Obama's idea of what is right about a healthcare system.

Obama would be correct in asserting we have a moral obligation to provide others with healthcare

Again you assert an improper analogy, again confusing a "moral requirement to act" with a "moral requirement NOT to assist in another's immorality" or not to act.

I don't see that at all. What I love about Objectivism is its integrated nature.

Well please start recognizing that integration in your arguments then IF you intend to argue what Objectivism does or does not support.

If your morality says it's okay to take my property, my morality will remain steadfast in asserting it is not okay to take my property, and I can objectively prove it is not.

If my morality says it's okay to rob people to get money in order to buy drugs from you, your morality says "That willl be $50 please." Your decision to do business with this person would be immoral. It is unjust to take the money from this man that has come at the expense of an innocent victim. Also remember I said "in a sense", not strictly determined. Your knowledge of his actions or intentions SHOULD be taken into account in your morality. You said your morality is independent of whatever his actions are as long as you serve your higher values. That is an example of the moral agnosticism about which Rand speaks.

There is no "Objectivist position."

A different discussion for a different day perhaps.

I would proffer that in this particular instance you have somewhat limited knowledge and exposure to the illegal drug trade and all various facets that exist that make it thrive and the impact it has on people and communities. You probably don't have much exposure to drug dealers and users on say, a daily basis. I've spent the better part of 24 years around this culture and I've seen its huge destructive impact. While maybe misguided, I have this image in my head that you only see Johnny Toker sneaking the occasional joint to "help him relax". I've seen dead unkempt, filthy junkies lying on the floor in their own vomit. I've seen brains oozing out of the hole in some guy's head after a "business transaction" went wrong. I've seen young girls and women selling their bruised bodies to men so they can chase that next fix. I'm not exaggerating or talking TV shows, I've really observed these things (and more) on a first hand basis.

Yes, it is truly a moral and heroic man who helps this culture thrive through his productive venture of illegal drugs sales. It clearly says nothing of his morality or values as long as he gets paid at the end of the day.

[RationalBiker]

If it were the case that dealing with immoral people makes one immoral, then we're all immoral because we all deal with immoral people - people who do not have an objective morality.

BTW, I've seen you do this several times and I'd like to point out that is it fallacious to argue that the consequence of something determines whether or not it is true or false.

[DavidOdden]

There is nothing in the Trader principle which requires one to only deal with people who make rational decisions.

From Galt's Speech:

The symbol of all relationships among such men, the moral symbol of respect for human beings, is

the trader

. We, who live by values, not by loot, are traders, both in matter and in spirit. A trader is a man who earns what he gets and does not give or take the undeserved. A trader does not ask to be paid for his failures, nor does he ask to be loved for his flaws. A trader does not squander his body as fodder or his soul as alms. Just as he does not give his work except in trade for material values, so he does not give the values of his spirit—his love, his friendship, his esteem—except in payment and in trade for human virtues, in payment for his own selfish pleasure,

which he receives from men he can respect

. The mystic parasites who have, throughout the ages, reviled the traders and held them in contempt, while honoring the beggars and the looters, have known the secret motive of their sneers: a trader is the entity they dread—a man of justice....

I win by means of nothing but logic and I surrender to nothing but logic. I do not surrender my reason or deal with men who surrender theirs.

I have nothing to gain from fools or cowards; I have no benefits to seek from human vices: from stupidity, dishonesty or fear

.

[JeffS]

I've said this several times before, but it bears repeating one more time; your morality depends on your KNOWLEDGE of another person acting rationally.

I agree. Are you obligated, to yourself, to your own morality, to determine whether the other person is acting rationally?

When you KNOW that the gun you are selling is going to be used to go shot up a school full of children, you can't just say "That will be $550 please" and sell the gun morally absolved of what the other person has told you he is going to do with the product you provided him.

You don't "know" anything other than the person has made a threat. If he tells you nothing, gets his gun, then kills someone, are you immoral for not discovering his real reason for wanting a gun?

Are cigarette sellers immoral?

By the observations and reasoning they use involving the facts of reality before their senses. That's what makes the morality objective.

So, it's not only possible, but required for us to know what is good for others?

Are you asking me a context-less question for which I have not made a general assertion? Are you confusing my argument with someone else's? Have you forgotten that I have acknowedged at least once that there may be exceptional cases?

Then you would agree selling illegal drugs can be moral?

Oh yes you did. When you say Obama is right about his ideas on healthcare you are saying he is right that everyone should be taxed to provide a government-based healthcare system. Inherent in that is forced taxation. That is very much a part of Obama's idea of what is right about a healthcare system.

Oh, no, I did not. I wrote nothing about Obama, or anyone, using force. I never wrote anything about being taxed. I used Obama because he's a person whom, it can be assumed, everyone here has heard the views of.

Again you assert an improper analogy, again confusing a "moral requirement to act" with a "moral requirement NOT to assist in another's immorality" or not to act.

Well, if the argument is one person's morality can determine the morality of another, it doesn't matter if we're discussing moral requirements to act, or not to act. If your morality determines my morality, then it determines my morality.

This is the argument I'm addressing:

Buyer: I want a lunchbox. I'll pay $100,000 for it.

Seller: That is not in your self-interests.

The argument is the seller is morally correct in judging what another's self-interests are.

Me: I don't want to pay for some stranger's health care.

Obama: That is not in your self-interests.

If the conclusion of the former example - that the seller is morally correct in judging what another's self-interests are - then the conclusion of the latter example should also be: Obama is morally correct in judging what another's self-interests are.

If my morality says it's okay to rob people to get money in order to buy drugs from you, your morality says "That willl be $50 please." Your decision to do business with this person would be immoral. It is unjust to take the money from this man that has come at the expense of an innocent victim. Also remember I said "in a sense", not strictly determined. Your knowledge of his actions or intentions SHOULD be taken into account in your morality. You said your morality is independent of whatever his actions are as long as you serve your higher values. That is an example of the moral agnosticism about which Rand speaks.

The morality of the vast majority of people in the world says there is a Supreme Being in the sky and we should do whatever He says we should do. Is my decision to do business with these people immoral? The vast majority of people in the world believe it's okay to rob people at the point of a gun in order to get money to give to other people who do not have it. Is it immoral of me to do business with them?

I would proffer that in this particular instance you have somewhat limited knowledge and exposure to the illegal drug trade and all various facets that exist that make it thrive and the impact it has on people and communities. You probably don't have much exposure to drug dealers and users on say, a daily basis.

Absolutely.

I've spent the better part of 24 years around this culture and I've seen its huge destructive impact. While maybe misguided, I have this image in my head that you only see Johnny Toker sneaking the occasional joint to "help him relax".

No, I've seen the destruction it can wreak. Not as graphically as you, but I'm not naive. I've also seen the damage cigarettes and high-fat food can wreak. In terms of scope and breadth, these two products cause far more destruction. Is that the standard we're using - how much destruction the product causes?

I'm not exactly sure where you and I disagree, RationalBiker, but my argument all along has been context determines the immorality of selling illegal drugs. The arguments I've been contesting have been that selling illegal drugs is immoral regardless of context, that if it's immoral to sell illegal drugs to junkies, then it's also immoral to sell illegal drugs to Johnny Toker. I've also been arguing against an obligation, or even the possibility, of knowing what is in the self-interests of another and whether my morality hinges on that ability. Perhaps that is our only disagreement?

(JeffS wrote: If it were the case that dealing with immoral people makes one immoral, then we're all immoral because we all deal with immoral people - people who do not have an objective morality.) BTW, I've seen you do this several times and I'd like to point out that is it fallacious to argue that the consequence of something determines whether or not it is true or false.

This was brought up again above, but I wanted to address this point here. I'm not arguing the consequences of something determines whether or not it is true or false. I'm attempting to get at the underlying principle. Are we immoral if we deal with immoral people? That seems to be what you, and others, are arguing. If that's not it, then please explain.

JeffSism may be fine with that, but the morality of Objectivism would not be.../... You may personally have a difficult time with this, but some folks do not.../... Venture away....

What is the purpose of these statements? They really serve no function other than to stick little barbs in. If there's another function, I would like to know it. If not, perhaps we can try to keep little barbs out so we can have a rational discussion?

[JeffS]

From Galt's Speech:

The symbol of all relationships among such men, the moral symbol of respect for human beings, is

the trader

. We, who live by values, not by loot, are traders, both in matter and in spirit. A trader is a man who earns what he gets and does not give or take the undeserved. A trader does not ask to be paid for his failures, nor does he ask to be loved for his flaws. A trader does not squander his body as fodder or his soul as alms. Just as he does not give his work except in trade for material values, so he does not give the values of his spirit—his love, his friendship, his esteem—except in payment and in trade for human virtues, in payment for his own selfish pleasure,

which he receives from men he can respect

. The mystic parasites who have, throughout the ages, reviled the traders and held them in contempt, while honoring the beggars and the looters, have known the secret motive of their sneers: a trader is the entity they dread—a man of justice....

I win by means of nothing but logic and I surrender to nothing but logic. I do not surrender my reason or deal with men who surrender theirs.

I have nothing to gain from fools or cowards; I have no benefits to seek from human vices: from stupidity, dishonesty or fear

.

We are surrounded by people who have surrendered their reason; people who are stupid, dishonest, and fearful. How can we morally deal with them?

[themadkat]

We are surrounded by people who have surrendered their reason; people who are stupid, dishonest, and fearful. How can we morally deal with them?

Because they have not surrendered their reason in EVERY facet of their lives, or they would be starving on the street covered in sores. Even the most irrational of people behaves rationally given certain everyday situations. And that is the way in which you can deal with them. You participate in trade with them to the extent they are rational. You shouldn't sell a junkie some heroin, but that doesn't mean it is also wrong to sell him a sandwich.

[Pawns4Mons]

Because they have not surrendered their reason in EVERY facet of their lives, or they would be starving on the street covered in sores. Even the most irrational of people behaves rationally given certain everyday situations. And that is the way in which you can deal with them. You participate in trade with them to the extent they are rational. You shouldn't sell a junkie some heroin, but that doesn't mean it is also wrong to sell him a sandwich.

Well what about selling heroin to an upstanding businessman?.

[DavidOdden]

We are surrounded by people who have surrendered their reason; people who are stupid, dishonest, and fearful. How can we morally deal with them?

That is the wrong question to ask. Morality is not primarily about how you deal with other people, it is about your own choices in relationship to your life. You should focus on what are proper values to pursue for your life, and this especially refers to your career.

[RationalBiker]

I agree. Are you obligated, to yourself, to your own morality, to determine whether the other person is acting rationally?

Yes, to the extent that I know whether or not my actions are contributing to another person's vices or immorality, to the extent that I know that the occupation I've chosen is typically contributing to immorality and vices rather than being productive and contributing to virtuous actions. It would be a detriment to me, greater than the financial gain, to help the junkie population flourish, and by extension, the criminal and other damages caused by propagating that culture of behavior.

You don't "know" anything other than the person has made a threat.

That's all I need to know. Do you think knowledge of a stated threat is insufficient? If instead the man said, "Sell me that gun so I can shoot you", would you hold that insufficient to be concerned with whether or not the guy was serious?

If he tells you nothing, gets his gun, then kills someone, are you immoral for not discovering his real reason for wanting a gun?

That context it too broad for a useful answer. Maybe. By what other reasonable means could I have had KNOWLEDGE of his intention to use the gun in that way?

Are cigarette sellers immoral?

I haven't been discussing the context of selling cigarettes, big macs, or Taco Bell fajitas.

So, it's not only possible, but required for us to know what is good for others?

What is required of us is not to evade our knowledge, not to claim "plausible deniability" to facts and circumstances right in front of our face. How much effort one puts into seeking this knowledge when it is less obvious depends on how self-interested that person is regarding the endeavor they have chosen to pursue.

Then you would agree selling illegal drugs can be moral?

Hmmm... maybe if I say it again... Have you forgotten that I have acknowedged at least once (well, twice now) that there may be exceptional cases?

Oh, no, I did not. I wrote nothing about Obama, or anyone, using force.

Here's what you said;

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.

Now, whether you choose to acknowledge it or not, Obama's position on health care is that the government should be providing to everyone at the expense of taxed money. Inherent in that, whether you choose to acknowledge it or not, is the FORCED TAXATION that would support that health care.

This is kinda like you making a statement about apples or oranges and then claiming you never said anything about any fruit.

If your morality determines my morality, then it determines my morality.

If you are not going to pay attention to my clarification of this statement, then I'm not going to waste my time clarifying it again. Just be warned, if you keep saying it this way, you are not addressing what I said. If you want to continue this, it would be helpful if you address what I said.

If the conclusion of the former example - that the seller is morally correct in judging what another's self-interests are - then the conclusion of the latter example should also be: Obama is morally correct in judging what another's self-interests are.

It's not because the situation is not analogous due to massive context dropping. Until you understand Obama and his moral position on health care, not just one small part of it, you won't understand why the analogy does not fit.

Is my decision to do business with these people immoral?

I think madkat makes an important distinction;

You participate in trade with them to the extent they are rational. You shouldn't sell a junkie some heroin, but that doesn't mean it is also wrong to sell him a sandwich.

Selling the guy a sandwich is not catering to his vice, is not aiding in his self-destruction, and as a self-interested business venture, selling sandwiches in the vast majority of contexts is likely productive and virtuous.

You are conflating "knowingly catering to one's vices and furthering evil" into "doing business". The former is merely a subset of the latter. This may be the distinction that clears up possible miscommunication.

What is the purpose of these statements?

They stand for themselves. First;

"JeffSism may be fine with that, but the morality of Objectivism would not be"

How is this a barb if you believe (according to your own system of morality) that you are not morally culpable for your knowledge of another's immoral use or intended use of a product over which you have a choice to sell or not sell to him? If you believe your morality is correct, it is simply a true statement, you would be acting morally (which would not be a negative). Additionally, it draws a distinction between what you would accept as moral behavior and what Objectivism accepts as moral behavior since the two do not coincide.

"You may personally have a difficult time with this, but some folks do no"

Meaning that you may have a more difficult time than others drawing logical inferences or using deductive reasoning regarding facts and circumstances within your realm of observation and knowledge.

"Venture away"

Meaning if you believe that is correct, continuing believing that is correct.

I've also been arguing against an obligation, or even the possibility, of knowing what is in the self-interests of another and whether my morality hinges on that ability.

Yes, that is a disagreement.

Edited September 25, 2009 by RationalBiker

[RationalBiker]

Well what about selling heroin to an upstanding businessman?.

Well, he's likely to go broke since selling heroin to upstanding businessmen is a highly improbably context. Do you see upstanding businessmen as an untapped heroin market?

Edited September 25, 2009 by RationalBiker

[Chris.S]

Well, he's likely to go broke since selling heroin to upstanding businessmen is a highly improbably context. Do you see upstanding businessmen as an untapped heroin market?

Couldn't you also ask, "in what way does heroin help an upstanding businessman do business?" If it doesn't contribute to his virtues, shouldn't it then be considered a vice, and therefore immoral? Even though he is spending his wealth on something he wants (which is proper), the usage of that item contributes to destruction of his consciousness and body, so selling him heroin is indeed immoral. Is that correct?

Why doesn't the degree to which an illegal drug affects mind and/or body matter in the morality of it's usage (marijuana vs heroin vs meth)? In degrees of effects, isn't something like morphine similar to marijuana besides it's addictiveness? Is addictiveness a factor in it's morality of using and selling?

[DavidOdden]

Why doesn't the degree to which an illegal drug affects mind and/or body matter in the morality of it's usage (marijuana vs heroin vs meth)? In degrees of effects, isn't something like morphine similar to marijuana besides it's addictiveness?

Although we concentrate on the most important distinction "good" versus "bad", it is certainly possible to talk of "really good" versus "good", or "really, really good" versus "really good". At a certain point it becomes inane to do so. But I do not have any doubt that use of heroin is much worse than use of marijuana, so yes, pot smoking is bad and heroin addiction is really, really bad. Nevertheless, pot smoking is bad, and it would be a mistake to say that pot smoking is better for you than heroin addiction.

[Andrew Grathwohl]

In degrees of effects, isn't something like morphine similar to marijuana besides it's addictiveness? Is addictiveness a factor in it's morality of using and selling?

Absolutely not - morphine is a completely different substance than marijuana. Morphine, when taken recreationally, can completely inhibit one's reflexes and mental comprehension. Marijuana, when used at anything less than extremely high amounts, is only a mild reflex inhibitor and typically allows the user to think like normally. Morphine is a painkiller, easily classified as a depressant. Marijuana, on the other hand, is not as easily classifiable, as there are ~65 cannibanoids that actually have an effect on the user (some of which are actually naturally-produced by the body already to regulate things like sleep and hunger). It is most strongly a hallucinogenic substance, if anything, with other stimulant and depressant qualities mixed in depending on the type of marijuana one ingests.

[RationalBiker]

Couldn't you also ask,

Yea, but much of the discussion so far of the morality of illegal drug dealing has focused on the effects of the drugs. There are other reasons that make the venture an immoral choice and in the case of "upstanding businessmen", it would be a poor career move to try to target them as a market for heroin.

[JeffS]

Yes, to the extent that I know whether or not my actions are contributing to another person's vices or immorality, to the extent that I know that the occupation I've chosen is typically contributing to immorality and vices rather than being productive and contributing to virtuous actions. It would be a detriment to me, greater than the financial gain, to help the junkie population flourish, and by extension, the criminal and other damages caused by propagating that culture of behavior...That context it too broad for a useful answer. Maybe. By what other reasonable means could I have had KNOWLEDGE of his intention to use the gun in that way?...What is required of us is not to evade our knowledge, not to claim "plausible deniability" to facts and circumstances right in front of our face. How much effort one puts into seeking this knowledge when it is less obvious depends on how self-interested that person is regarding the endeavor they have chosen to pursue.

So, the knowledge I have, or can reasonably obtain. I don't need to perform some exhaustive investigation of the guy, right?

If I know, or suspect, the buyer of my product will use it immorally - in a way that destroys life - it would be immoral for me to sell it to him. Not because his actions are immoral, but because it is not in my rational self-interests to live in a world populated with those who would destroy life. To assume the junkie asking for a dime bag is a casual toker would be evasion. However, it is possible to sell only to those you know are only casual users.

I agree to all of this. The question seems to hinge on whether the casual user is objectively immoral. If he is then selling illegal drugs is immoral in all cases. Medical dosages of drugs, medically administered, are not considered illegal and would not come under this question. However, medical marijuana, though legal in some states, is still federally classified as illegal. One could be selling marijuana to cancer patients (for example) and I would not consider them immoral, but they would still be selling an illegal drug. I suppose cancer patients wouldn't be considered "casual users" though and therefore wouldn't come under this question. So we're back to the question of whether casual users are objectively immoral.

I haven't been discussing the context of selling cigarettes, big macs, or Taco Bell fajitas.

I understand that, but I'm trying to get to the principle. Cigarettes destroy lives regardless of the degree of use. Everyone who buys cigarettes is acting irrationally, they are using them to destroy life. I know that. Therefore, going by what you wrote above, it would be immoral of me to sell cigarettes. (The same analogy could be made for selling high-fat, cholesterol-laden food.)

Hmmm... maybe if I say it again... Have you forgotten that I have acknowedged at least once (well, twice now) that there may be exceptional cases?

Well, I understand it can be tedious, and I apologize and ask for your forgiveness. However, I have to be sure the anwers are explicit. When I've been accused of distorting "the Objectivist position," and of having some sort of irrational (by implication) philosophy called "JeffSism," I need to be sure who holds which position. Because I don't think David Odden agrees with your position. I think his argument is that selling illegal drugs is immoral whether it's to the pot-head stuck to the couch, or Johnny Once-a-week Toker. Which position is Objectivism, which is RationalBikerism, and which is David Oddenism?

I'm really just after the rational, logical, provable-through-objective-reality answer. I really don't care whose "ism" it is.

I think madkat makes an important distinction ... Selling the guy a sandwich is not catering to his vice, is not aiding in his self-destruction, and as a self-interested business venture, selling sandwiches in the vast majority of contexts is likely productive and virtuous.

You are conflating "knowingly catering to one's vices and furthering evil" into "doing business". The former is merely a subset of the latter. This may be the distinction that clears up possible miscommunication.

I agree madkat makes an important distinction. The only point of contention I can see though is that the vast majority of the population isn't simply immoral and irrational in certain respects, they're immoral and irrational at the core - their very philosophies are irrational. They might be able to function, but they are immoral. If the principle is: don't deal with immoral people, people you don't respect, then we shouldn't deal with them at all.

Is it not furthering evil to be a method by which irrational and immoral people continue their existence?

[RationalBiker]

If he is then selling illegal drugs is immoral in all cases.

Keep in mind, I pointed out before that the drugs effects on it's users is not the only consideration in determining the morality of illegal drug sales, it just happens to be the only one this discussion has focused on.

The same analogy could be made for selling high-fat, cholesterol-laden food

Then considering a full context of the fast food industry, would you care to make that case? Perhaps in a different thread? I see the context of selling food, even fast food, as different from selling illegal drugs.

I think his argument is that selling illegal drugs is immoral whether it's to the pot-head stuck to the couch, or Johnny Once-a-week Toker. Which position is Objectivism, which is RationalBikerism, and which is David Oddenism?

I think it is highly likely that David has a much more thorough and integrated understanding of Objectivism than I do. I'm presenting what I understand of the issue based on an application of my understanding of Objectivism. Also, not to say this is the case here, it is not unheard of that two people discuss the application of Objectivism's principle and still fail to agree on a common answer. That said, I think David and I are both arguing the Objectivist "position" (as it were), albeit from different perspectives.

The only point of contention I can see though is that the vast majority of the population isn't simply immoral and irrational in certain respects, they're immoral and irrational at the core - their very philosophies are irrational.

Well, if that is the case (and I'm not agreeing or disagreeing that it is), then it is impossible NOT to deal with them in some aspect or another. However, you still have a choice in which aspect that you deal with them. Do you; a) sell them copies of the Bible and assist in furthering their irrational beliefs or; sell them copies of Atlas Shrugged in the hopes that you can get them to see reason?

I don't need to perform some exhaustive investigation of the guy, right?

Well, that depends. How much is knowledge of you trade in your self-interest? Let's go back to the gun example. Although I have concern of government forced "background checks" on gun buyers, I think it would be a rational business practice on the part of the private seller to do it anyway. I think how exhaustive one must examine these things is contextual to the business and to the degree that the trader values knowledge of his chosen trade.

Edited September 26, 2009 by RationalBiker
Forgot to Address last quote.

[JeffS]

Keep in mind, I pointed out before that the drugs effects on it's users is not the only consideration in determining the morality of illegal drug sales, it just happens to be the only one this discussion has focused on.

Yes, I wasn't giving this aspect enough attention. Because even if a seller sells only small amounts to casual users, and somehow never had to concern himself with risks from the other criminals, he still runs the risk of being imprisoned. Living your life like a hunted animal is certainly not living like a man. Selling illegal drugs is immoral, regardless of the context.

Thank you, RationalBiker.

Then considering a full context of the fast food industry, would you care to make that case? Perhaps in a different thread? I see the context of selling food, even fast food, as different from selling illegal drugs.

*Edit* Given what I wrote above, I'm not sure I could do this. I'll have to think about it more.

What about cigarettes? Are they different from selling illegal drugs? Especially given the FDA has classified cigarettes as a drug, and has made some cigarettes illegal? I'm sure we can expect a criminal underworld to spring-up around these, and selling them puts one at risk of being imprisoned.

I think it is highly likely that David has a much more thorough and integrated understanding of Objectivism than I do. I'm presenting what I understand of the issue based on an application of my understanding of Objectivism. Also, not to say this is the case here, it is not unheard of that two people discuss the application of Objectivism's principle and still fail to agree on a common answer. That said, I think David and I are both arguing the Objectivist "position" (as it were), albeit from different perspectives.

I have great deal of respect for David. His posts are always logical. If two people fail to agree on a common answer to a logical problem, wouldn't that mean one of them is incorrect? It simply can't be the case that selling illegal drugs is objectively moral and objectively immoral.

Well, if that is the case (and I'm not agreeing or disagreeing that it is), then it is impossible NOT to deal with them in some aspect or another. However, you still have a choice in which aspect that you deal with them. Do you; a) sell them copies of the Bible and assist in furthering their irrational beliefs or; sell them copies of Atlas Shrugged in the hopes that you can get them to see reason?

I think this is the right answer. I can't see how the Trader Principle, and an objective morality, precludes a moral trader from trading with an immoral trader. As long as they both are allowed to independently determine their own self-interests for that trade, then the trade is moral. They may both be rational, both irrational, or one of each. But as long as they interact with each other "by means of a free, voluntary, unforced, uncoerced exchange—an exchange which benefits both parties by their own independent judgment," (AR) then the trade is moral.

It's not in my rational self-interests to sell illegal drugs, but I judge that independently. I can't see how it would not be in my self-interests to sell a lunchbox for $100,000, even if the prospective buyer is making an irrational decision. To argue something like, "Well, you don't want to live in a society of idiots and whim followers," can open up a whole range of arguments. "You should provide housing for the poor because it's not in your self-interests to live in a society of homeless." "You should pay for others' health care because it's not in your self-interests to live in a society of sick people." And on, and on, and on.

Well, that depends. How much is knowledge of you trade in your self-interest? Let's go back to the gun example. Although I have concern of government forced "background checks" on gun buyers, I think it would be a rational business practice on the part of the private seller to do it anyway. I think how exhaustive one must examine these things is contextual to the business and to the degree that the trader values knowledge of his chosen trade.

Okay.

Edited September 27, 2009 by JeffS