Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Selling illegal drugs

Rate this topic


mke

Recommended Posts

As for the first point, that's correct and also irrelevant to the question of whether being a dope dealer is a moral plan for life. If you have a concrete proposal to the effect that meth is a life-enhancing substance then you can make that argument. The nature of drugs and chemistry is such that you can't give an exhaustive list because it's always possible to invent something new. When you discover this wonderful new life-enhancing narcotic, you can tell us about it and we can judge based on the facts.

I already showed how methamphetamine is used legitimately in medicine.

Nor must the discussion be limited to addiction. Drug use has a number of things going against it. Apart from addictive properties, there are also immediate and long-term body damage properties, and the fact that dopers who postulate that cocaine helps them focus or heroin helps them to relax are evading their own psychological problems.

I agree that there are immediate and long-term damage possibilities associated with most drugs - legal or otherwise. I would never suggest that one who uses coke for focus or heroin for relaxation is a moral person. But remember that heroin is a form of opiate - using heroin as your example is clever because it has a huge taboo surrounding it, but heroin in itself is a product of immoral behavior, whereas opium is a product of human innovation. Coca leafs have been used for centuries as a pain reliever. Again, cocaine as a drug is more of a product of immoral behavior, and less of a product of legitimate human innovation.

I suggest that you read up on the Objectivist understanding of emotions. Happiness is an effect, not a cause, so taking drugs to "make you happy" is possible only if you evade knowledge of the proper nature of happiness.

I never suggested that "taking drugs to 'make you happy'" is a legitimate reason to use them. Somebody who relied on drugs for happiness would be a pretty immoral person.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 144
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Drug dealers cater to men's vices. It is a decidedly unimpressive way to make money because anyone who is willing to sqander his life can do it. I don't admire liquor store owners either.

Um.. really?

I own a bar, am I immoral?

I don't believe an object can be a vice, only the way it is used.

Liquor is not a vice. For some it is an indulgence, a luxury an enjoyment an occasional social activity.

To disrespect a business person because of the way a minority of consumers choose to use a product seems to go against Objectivist principle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sure that the individuals who suffer from severe obesity, ADHD, or narcolepsy, and are prescribed Desoxyn, would tell me this.

And oddly enough that doesn't make my comment any less true. Interesting response.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I already showed how methamphetamine is used legitimately in medicine.

Which drops the ENTIRE context set forth in the title and the first post. The OP is not making an inquiry about the morality of drugs in general, he's asking a question within a specific context, to which DavidO replied. In fact, DavidO later says;

"Of course I'm assuming the context implied by the OP, which doesn't refer to medical marijuana, the manufacture and sale of various drugs for scientific purposes, etc. "

Are you suggesting that Joe Methseller is regularly providing prescribed Crystal Meth homemade out of his trailer to users who are addressing legitimately diagnosed health issues? Are you suggesting the Jimmy Crackslinger cares about his customers and seeks to provide them with a high quality life-enhancing experience from which to flourish? In my 24 years of experience in street level narcotics, which is admittedly not all encompassing, I've never met a Joe or Jimmy as described above. I still agree with the premise that drug laws are wrong, but it's a mistake to see sellers of recreational illegal drugs as heroic businessmen providing a valuable service to the community.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are all aware of your evasion and context-dropping of the type exemplified by the statement "Drugs enable people to live longer, more enjoyable lives".

I wrote this statement, and I'll stand by it.

The topic of the thread is "Selling illegal drugs." The original OP, in its entirety, follows:

"I do not sell or consume any illegal drugs. I do believe all drugs should be legal for adults. How should I view people that sell illegal drugs? They don't seem immoral to me, yet something feels wrong. Maybe I just dislike that it seems like they are taking the easy route and that they risk so much for money."

In neither the title, nor the OP are the concepts addiction, addicts, reality evasion, life destruction, misery, or any specific drug raised. No, the question is not about pharmaceuticals, but neither is it about addiction, destruction of consciousness, or enabling such vices. To assume the OP meant any of this is strictly that: assumptive. Therefore, to accuse me of dropping a context which the OP never specified is, to be polite, disingenuous.

The topic is about the morality of selling illegal drugs - drugs banned for use or sale by the state; given our state, this is an arbitrary distinction at best. You followed the OP with: "In what way is drug selling moral? Not being an initiation of force is not the same thing as being moral." To which I made the above quote. Whether you had applied your assumption of what the OP was asking by this point I have no way of knowing. Nothing in your post indicates you had. The information I had to go on at this point is you believe selling drugs the state has (arbitrarily) deemed illegal to be immoral. I provided the moral backing for selling those drugs - the same kind of moral backing selling any product would have: it provides value to the seller, and to the buyer.

Drugs do enable people to live longer, more enjoyable lives. It doesn't matter if the state has (arbitrarily) made those drugs illegal. If you want to discuss specific drugs, then we'll have to establish the context. But within the context of this thread, the simple fact of illegality does not make the seller of that drug immoral.

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.

Is the Burger King employee immoral if he sells a burger to a fat man? Is the liquor store, or bartender immoral for selling an alcoholic a drink? Is the gas station attendant immoral for selling cigarettes to an addict, or someone with lung cancer?

My morality guides my decisions, and is guided by my life and my happiness. It is not guided by the decisions of others. If Objectivism has proved otherwise, I would love the references.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In neither the title, nor the OP are the concepts addiction, addicts, reality evasion, life destruction, misery, or any specific drug raised.

In the real world, all of the things you mention are directly related to the question asked regardless of whether or not the OP mentioned them in his OP. In fact, quite often people ask questions in this forum that have directly related issues pertinent to the question even when the poster doesn't mention them. That's how they learn things, by being able to digest information that perhaps they hadn't considered. It is perfectly valid to include these related issues in pondering the question asked because Objectivism (nor this forum) require a person to pigeon-hole their answer based solely on the terminology used by a poster when there exists in reality pertinent related facts that are also useful in evaluating the correct response.

In this particular instance, the selling of illegal drugs, it would be disingenuous and incomplete to exclude the "usual" nature of a given business, who the customer is, why the customer is buying the drugs, what effect those drugs have on the customer and whether or not it is reasonable for the seller to know all these facts as he plies his trade.

In my opinion, with a significant amount of experience in this area, the norm is that the business of dealing illegal "hard" drugs is typically immoral (more often than not). I may not be willing to say that in absolutely every case is it immoral, but by far it would be the standard, and in every case I have seen so far. I've never met a dope dealer who was a heroic businessman providing a valuable service to his customers such that the customers lives can flourish.

Your examples of Burger Kings and bars introduce diffferent contexts that must be considered in evaluating the morality of those endeavors and they are not at all analogous of the question at hand.

In essence, you're arguing the seller's morality is determined by the moral decisions of the buyer.

At the risk of speaking for DavidO yet again, I think he would argue it is not the moral decision of the buyer that determines the seller's morality, it's the knowledge that the seller has of the buyer's morality and the knowledge of the destructiveness of the product and it's typical use in that context that determines the seller's morality.

For example, in your bar example, if a bar tender sold a drink to a person who told him "I'm going to get as f-cked up as I can tonight so I can drive around and careen off as many people as I can in my car", it would be immoral for the bartender to start loading that guy up.

The same applies to the dope dealer as he continues to serve up "round" after "round" to the withering zombies that frequent his corner as their lives spiral further and further out of control one hit at a time.

Now, if your morality wants to herald this person as a champion of humanity with a wonderful sense of life, by all means, do so. Have Joe Crackdealer over for tea and crumpets. You probably won't even have a drive-by during the snack.

Edited by RationalBiker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

I disagree with your assessment of David's argument, but it is there to read, so I'm not going to repeat it. Here's something from Ayn Rand that backs up his argument that a career trader should properly consider who his customers are, and whether they benefit from doing business with him. I've heard people like John Allison and other Objectivists single out this principle, as an important one for businessmen to keep in mind, in the context of all business dealings.

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/trader_principle.html

A trader is a man who earns what he gets and does not give or take the undeserved. He does not treat men as masters or slaves, but as independent equals. He deals with men by means of a free, voluntary, unforced, uncoerced exchange—an exchange which benefits both parties by their own independent judgment.

Edited by Jake_Ellison
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In neither the title, nor the OP are the concepts addiction, addicts, reality evasion, life destruction, misery, or any specific drug raised. No, the question is not about pharmaceuticals, but neither is it about addiction, destruction of consciousness, or enabling such vices.
What it is clearly about is his feeling that there's something wrong. Why would anybody think that such an action is wrong, even if it should be legally allowed? The explanation lies in the facts of the referents. Anyone with an elementary understanding of Objectivism knows that questions are resolved by reducing the matter to what exists. So the first task in trying to answer the question is to understand the nature of the referents. The first task is not to attempt to twist meanings so as to point to entirely different referents.

Thus we firmly arrive at the conclusion that using drugs destroys the consciousness, harms the body, and yields no rational benefit.

The topic is about the morality of selling illegal drugs - drugs banned for use or sale by the state; given our state, this is an arbitrary distinction at best.
You claim. I claim that "illegal drugs" is an economical expression that encompasses myriad forms of dope: cocaine, hash, marijuana, meth, LSD, morphine, heroin, uppers, downers, PCP, X, vicodin, mercy sakes I don't know what all they've invented. The legal ban is not arbitrary -- it is wrong. Taking away the error of legally banning these substances -- and the OP correctly identifies the legal / political principle -- we have the intelligent question, about whether there is anything wrong with these activities, once we understand that the drugs should be legal. Thus the question is about the nature of the referents, and not the words "illegal drugs".
But within the context of this thread, the simple fact of illegality does not make the seller of that drug immoral.
Read the thread again, from the top. From the OP: "I do believe all drugs should be legal for adults". From my first response: "Not being an initiation of force is not the same thing as being moral". This being an Objectivist forum, it is implicitly established from the principles of Objectivism that the government has no business at all restricting drug sale or use. These two posts say more about the topic than is necessary. So how could you possibly believe that anybody here believe that government restriction of drugs is proper?
My morality guides my decisions, and is guided by my life and my happiness. It is not guided by the decisions of others.
Then you can directly answer the question that I posed: in what way is selling drugs moral? Don't go changing context to medicine. Stick with the original context. How is selling heroin a rational career? How does that choice of career enhance your life beyond all other choices?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm all on board with all drugs being legal, and also with the fact that if all drugs were legal there are still many (if not most) that it would still be immoral to sell.

So my question (as someone who makes my living serving alcoholic beverages) is this:

alcohol, being a drug and one that destroys many lives.. where does that fall?

one could say that pot is less harmful than alcohol and they would in many cases be correct.

The answer I've come up with for myself is that of all the drugs (pot use in medical cases the exception) alcohol is the only one that can be enjoyed as an end to itself, without the end of changing or avoiding or negating reality as its goal.

Alcohol can be used in a destructive manner but it can also be enjoyed purely in the same manner a delicious food, or coffee or tea.. for taste.

Does this seem to be correct to those of you who believe drugs immoral but alcohol acceptable?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the real world, all of the things you mention are directly related to the question asked regardless of whether or not the OP mentioned them in his OP.

That's assumptive. There are many people who take illegal drugs and live long, productive, happy lives. Jake Ellison seems to be one of them. He hasn't stated it specifically, but that's an assumption I made based on one of his posts. Is he immoral? Is the person who sells him his drugs immoral for selling him those drugs? If not, why not?

Your examples of Burger Kings and bars introduce diffferent contexts that must be considered in evaluating the morality of those endeavors and they are not at all analogous of the question at hand.

Then it's contextual, as aequalsa pointed out early in the thread. Simply by nature of being "illegal" does not make the sale immoral.

At the risk of speaking for DavidO yet again, I think he would argue it is not the moral decision of the buyer that determines the seller's morality, it's the knowledge that the seller has of the buyer's morality and the knowledge of the destructiveness of the product and it's typical use in that context that determines the seller's morality.

So, the seller's thought process would go something like this:

"I know the buyer has chosen to be an addict. The buyer has chosen to destroy their own lives, and is choosing to do so with my product. Improperly used, my product can destroy lives. If I sell my product to this buyer, they will destroy their own lives.

Selling my product to them would satisfy many values for me. It allows me to lead a productive life; it allows me to earn money through voluntary trade with others so that I may in turn use that money to trade freely with others and obtain the things I need to further my life - my highest value.

I should not sell my product to this buyer, even though doing so serves my highest value because..."

Why?

I can think of only one valid reason: it's not rational to sell a product which eventually kills all your customers. The immorality rests on the fact that your choice of career leads to a dead end, quite literally. That doesn't serve your long-term interests. Selling illegal drugs is not immoral for what the drugs do to others; selling a product which eventually kills your customers is immoral because doing so does not serve your rational self-interests, nor enable you to thrive and flourish long-term.

However, I would also argue the product's characteristic of being illegal is not related to this decision. Someone could morally choose to sell marijuana, an illegal drug, only to cancer patients, or even recreational users.

Now, if your morality wants to herald this person as a champion of humanity with a wonderful sense of life, by all means, do so.

I'm not sure what being a "champion of humanity" has to do with Objective ethics and morality. As Objectivists, does our sense of life extend to others' sense of life? Is our morality dependent upon others valuing their own lives? Does "sense of life" mean "value all life, regardless?"

Here's something from Ayn Rand that backs up his argument that a career trader should properly consider who his customers are, and whether they benefit from doing business with him. I've heard people like John Allison and other Objectivists single out this principle, as an important one for businessmen to keep in mind, in the context of all business dealings.

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.

What it is clearly about is his feeling that there's something wrong. Why would anybody think that such an action is wrong, even if it should be legally allowed? The explanation lies in the facts of the referents. Anyone with an elementary understanding of Objectivism knows that questions are resolved by reducing the matter to what exists. So the first task in trying to answer the question is to understand the nature of the referents. The first task is not to attempt to twist meanings so as to point to entirely different referents.

Well, there were very few referents given. To assume referents at all is invalid. Perhaps the OP believes such an action is wrong because he's lived his whole life with people telling him it's wrong. Or perhaps he believes it's wrong simply because it's illegal and he believe breaking the law, even an improper law, is wrong. Without more context we can't decide either way.

Thus we firmly arrive at the conclusion that using drugs destroys the consciousness, harms the body, and yields no rational benefit.

Which simply isn't true. We can firmly arrive at the conclusion that using some drugs, in some dosages destroys the consciousness, harms the body, and yields no rational benefit. But simply using "illegal" to describe a drug doesn't impart any other qualities upon it.

The legal ban is not arbitrary -- it is wrong.

I meant the state arbitrarily decides which drugs should be legal and which should not. Since that decision is arbitrary, we can't assume anything about which drugs are included in the concept "illegal drugs." The referents are arbitrary. If the state suddenly decides to make aspirin illegal, does that make all sellers of aspirin immoral? It does not. The legality or illegality of the drug has no bearing on the morality of its sale. It's morality is dependent, it appears, upon the intended use by the buyer.

So how could you possibly believe that anybody here believe that government restriction of drugs is proper?

I do not. Nor have I stated or implied that I do. My argument has only been that the legality or illegality of a drug has no bearing on the morality of its sale.

Then you can directly answer the question that I posed: in what way is selling drugs moral? Don't go changing context to medicine. Stick with the original context. How is selling heroin a rational career? How does that choice of career enhance your life beyond all other choices?

I've answered that question. It's moral in the same way that selling any product is moral. Selling heroin would be a rational career if the people you're selling to aren't going to kill themselves with it, just like selling a car is rational if you're not selling cars to people who drive off cliffs. Selling heroin is still illegal even if you take great pains to ensure your customers will still be around to keep buying from you. Selling cars is still legal even if you sell only to lemmings with driver's permits. The former is moral, but illegal; the latter is immoral, yet legal.

With all due respect, David, you seem to be the one changing the context. You're expanding it to include your assumptions about what drugs, what usage, and what the buyers are doing with those drugs are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can think of only one valid reason: it's not rational to sell a product which eventually kills all your customers. The immorality rests on the fact that your choice of career leads to a dead end, quite literally. That doesn't serve your long-term interests. Selling illegal drugs is not immoral for what the drugs do to others; selling a product which eventually kills your customers is immoral because doing so does not serve your rational self-interests, nor enable you to thrive and flourish long-term.

I think this argument is flawed.

There is nothing that says it is irrational or wrong to pursue short-term business options.

One could make the claim they were selling drugs in the short term to procure funds for a more viable long term plan which would negate the longevity of prospects argument.

It is also negated by the fact that you expect consumer attrition regardless of how that occurs- be it moving away, loss of income, loss of interest, aging factors or yes, even death. It is an absolute that every customer of every business is going to die.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which drops the ENTIRE context set forth in the title and the first post. The OP is not making an inquiry about the morality of drugs in general, he's asking a question within a specific context, to which DavidO replied. In fact, DavidO later says;

"Of course I'm assuming the context implied by the OP, which doesn't refer to medical marijuana, the manufacture and sale of various drugs for scientific purposes, etc. "

Are you suggesting that Joe Methseller is regularly providing prescribed Crystal Meth homemade out of his trailer to users who are addressing legitimately diagnosed health issues? Are you suggesting the Jimmy Crackslinger cares about his customers and seeks to provide them with a high quality life-enhancing experience from which to flourish? In my 24 years of experience in street level narcotics, which is admittedly not all encompassing, I've never met a Joe or Jimmy as described above. I still agree with the premise that drug laws are wrong, but it's a mistake to see sellers of recreational illegal drugs as heroic businessmen providing a valuable service to the community.

I was responding mostly to absurd comments being made by others to justify their arguments.

First, it would be wrong to distinguish between "illegal" or "legal" drugs, because the legality of the product is not what makes it moral or immoral. Second, the difference between the illegal drug dealer selling a drug and a pharmaceutical company selling a drug lies within the drug's production quality and intended usage. Since the legality of the drug is not a legitimate point to distinguish, it must be noted that a moral society would never prohibit anybody from consuming whatever substances they like. It is just as easy to abuse an opiate pill as it is to abuse heroin, so the "vice" would be the same between both parties. And remember my comments regarding "illegal" drugs; they are no more illegitimate, no less moral and no less a vice, than most legal substances and activities that people ruin their lives over.

I never suggested that Joe Methseller or Jimmy Crackslinger are moral people, or care about their customers. But there are pharmaceutical companies that sell substances with the same ingredients as their products, for legitimate uses, with better quality control and a higher quality overall. Drugs like heroin and crack stem from dealers and manufacturers wanting to "hook" their clients, and generally provide a carelessly unsafe product for higher revenues. Opium and the alkaloids of the coca leaf - the drugs' respective materials - have legitimate uses, and pharmaceutical companies make legitimate, moral livings selling and manufacturing them. So, it is possible to be a moral drug dealer, and there exist many. Is it moral to be an illegal drug dealer? Consider the difference - you'd must make the assumption that every drug dealer who sells illegal drugs would necessarily be selling heroin or crack. They could be selling pharmaceutical products, or non-addictive drugs, and it would still be illegal. When it comes like non-addictive drugs like marijuana, alcohol, lysergic acid, psilocybin, and MDMA, you can no longer make the argument that the dealer is profiting off of their clients' addictions. And it would be completely invalid to label the enjoyment of these substances as inherently vices, as I've outlined in other posts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

I'm not ignoring "by their own independent judgment", you're ignoring "an exchange which benefits both parties", and are claiming that they are mutually exclusive, since a trader can't know what's good for their trading partner.

Traders should only deal with people who agree to a deal "by their own independent judgment". However, they don't have to deal with everyone, no matter what their judgment. A trader should choose to not deal with people who's independent judgment is obviously wrong (such as a drug addict who decides drugs are good for him), but only with the people who's judgment he can assume is not built on evasion. He dosen't have to think for other people, but if he deliberately sells cocaine to a person other than a hospital manager buying it for medical use, or he knowingly deals with anyone who's going to lose from this deal, he is deliberately ignoring the trader principle, and will pay for it in the long run, as people do for all immoral acts. That is what Ayn Rand's trader principle means.

It is ridiculous to say that I can't judge whether cocaine is good or bad for a person. I can, so can everyone with half a brain. Ayn Rand spent her life judging what's good and bad, for every human on the face of the Earth. That's what Ethics does, it tells you what's good and what's bad, for people. If you know someone's context, you can judge what's good or bad for them.

Whoever says cocaine is good for them, you should know better, and refuse to deal with them. Not lie to yourself, and say "oh well, I guess if he buys cocaine from me, it must be good for him, who am I to know that it's not".

Edited by Jake_Ellison
Link to comment
Share on other sites

alcohol, being a drug and one that destroys many lives.. where does that fall?

one could say that pot is less harmful than alcohol and they would in many cases be correct.

People who drink to excess are behaving immorally. So for starters, alcohol should only be consumed in appropriate amounts -- just to the extent that it is good. We therefore won't consider excess consumption of alcohol any further. Now the question is, is there any amount of marijuana consumption that constitutes being "good for you". I have never seen any evidence that there is.
The answer I've come up with for myself is that of all the drugs (pot use in medical cases the exception) alcohol is the only one that can be enjoyed as an end to itself, without the end of changing or avoiding or negating reality as its goal.
I think this is absolutely the right conclusion to draw from the facts.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alcoholism is a disease, not an addiction. Alcohol is not addictive, just as food is not addictive.

That is completely inaccurate.

One, the medical and mental health establishment is pretty evenly split with one half (my spouse being on the non-disease side) believing it insane to call alcoholism a disease.

Alcoholism is something you do to yourself. Even if you have genetic predispositions towards alcohol addiction you will never have alcoholism without, at some point, choosing to drink to excess.

I cannot even begin to understand how you can link alcohol and food in terms of addiction and mental health diagnosis.

One must eat to survive. One can choose to never have alcohol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I should add the fallacy of alcoholism as a disease was promoted mainly to remove a stigma from what rightfully deserves to be stigmatized and to procure more government monies to treat people for it at a time when spending money on people's behavioral issues was frowned upon. Also, it was a big factor in making employers unable to fire drunks- because you can't fire someone with a disease.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now the question is, is there any amount of marijuana consumption that constitutes being "good for you".

I've had friends with cancer that found it very useful for pain relief, anti-nausea and appetite during treatment without all the negative side effects of the manufactured drugs currently available.

My theory (somewhat biased, I admit) is- if you have later stage cancer you pretty much get a moral blank check to anything (that does not hurt another or violate their rights) that makes you comfortable.

That said, I'm not sure that answers your question since there is a difference between something being actively "good for you" and something that simply makes it easier to stand the bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've had friends with cancer that found it very useful for pain relief, anti-nausea and appetite during treatment without all the negative side effects of the manufactured drugs currently available.
Right, but from the get-go, the benefits of medical marijuana have been acknowledged here. The questionable morality is limited to recreational use.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is nothing that says it is irrational or wrong to pursue short-term business options.

One could make the claim they were selling drugs in the short term to procure funds for a more viable long term plan which would negate the longevity of prospects argument.

My argument would only apply to choosing to sell illegal drugs as a career.

It is also negated by the fact that you expect consumer attrition regardless of how that occurs- be it moving away, loss of income, loss of interest, aging factors or yes, even death. It is an absolute that every customer of every business is going to die.

Certainly, but one could expect far greater attrition selling a product that kills it users. Would your long-term interests be served by serving only alcoholics? Even if you turned every person in the country into an alcoholic, eventually you would have no more customers because they'd all be dead.

I'm not ignoring "by their own independent judgment", you're ignoring "an exchange which benefits both parties", and are claiming that they are mutually exclusive, since a trader can't know what's good for their trading partner.

No, Jake, I'm not ignoring it. Nor did I argue you were ignoring the prepositional phrase. I'm calling attention to it as you called attention to what you believed was the salient part of the quote.

Traders should only deal with people who agree to a deal "by their own independent judgment". However, they don't have to deal with everyone, no matter what their judgment. A trader should choose to not deal with people who's independent judgment is obviously wrong (such as a drug addict who decides drugs are good for him), but only with the people who's judgment he can assume is not built on evasion.

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

It is ridiculous to say that I can't judge whether cocaine is good or bad for a person. I can, so can everyone with half a brain.

Really? How do you determine this?

Whoever says cocaine is good for them, you should know better, and refuse to deal with them. Not lie to yourself, and say "oh well, I guess if he buys cocaine from me, it must be good for him, who am I to know that it's not".

Let's suppose I really want a Scooby-Doo lunchbox. I mean, I want it bad. You just happen to have one - beat up, stuffed in a forgotten part of your garage - but I want it anyway. I offer you $100,000 for it - a sum clearly off the scale of how much you think it is worth. Would you refuse to sell it to me? If not, why not?

Do you use illegal drugs, Jake? If so, are you immoral? Is your dealer?

Right, but from the get-go, the benefits of medical marijuana have been acknowledged here. The questionable morality is limited to recreational use.

Medical marijuana is still illegal. If you're going to argue selling medical marijuana is moral, then you're arguing selling illegal drugs is moral. As to recreational use, what is the difference between having a drink after work and smoking a joint after work?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's suppose I really want a Scooby-Doo lunchbox. I mean, I want it bad. You just happen to have one - beat up, stuffed in a forgotten part of your garage - but I want it anyway. I offer you $100,000 for it - a sum clearly off the scale of how much you think it is worth. Would you refuse to sell it to me? If not, why not?

It depends. If all you have is that money, and you can't give me a good reason why you want it, then I'll assume you are mentally impaired, and I'll refuse to take your money. But if you're a millionaire looking to satisfy some silly whim, then sure, I don't have any reason to think this would hurt you, so I'd take the money.

Do you use illegal drugs, Jake? If so, are you immoral? Is your dealer?

It has nothing to do with legality, in fact the trader principle is not restricted to drugs at all. Making a career out of trade that is not beneficial to both sides is an immoral choice.

I don't think occasional pot smoking is immoral, no. It really doesn't change my thoughts on anything, 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)

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

No, it doesn't put anyone off limits to an Objectivist. It puts certain specific choices, like selling cocaine to pretty much anyone (except, if they really do use cocaine for medical purposes, to a hospital), selling alcohol to an alcoholic or someone who mentioned he intends to drive next, selling a gun to a career criminal or dynamite to a Muslim fundamentalist, giving a mortgage to someone who won't be able to pay up so he'll lose his home (even if it would benefit me to take the house), etc.

Really? How do you determine this?

How do I determine if cocaine is harmful to any random person? By integrating pertinent facts about cocaine and its effects on other humans who used it before, and using my mind to draw a conclusion. Basically, I determine it the same way I determine that a speeding truck will likely kill a person, if they step in front of it. Not through magic, just by thinking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never suggested that Joe Methseller or Jimmy Crackslinger are moral people, or care about their customers.

And yet, this is at the very heart of the OP's question.

The "illegal" component of the drugs IS relevant because it is an important component for setting the context under which the seller does his business and the determining a context for being able to answer the OP's question. Arguing that other businesses or ventures can ALSO be immoral really doesn't change things. I'm sure we could provide an endless list of people engaged in immoral business ventures and yet still not address the OP's context.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The "illegal" component of the drugs IS relevant because it is an important component for setting the context under which the seller does his business and the determining a context for being able to answer the OP's question.
So for the sake of those who are interested in the basic moral questions, given Objectivism, this is one of those fundamental questions that has to be asked. When is it morally proper to violate the law? Is there any necessary concomitant to such violations, for example need they be publicly announced; admitted to when interrogated by the police; admitted to in a non-evidentiary context? Suppose that you are put in an untenable position because of existing immoral laws -- you were convicted of possession. Industrial concern over drug convictions -- zero-tolerance policies by employers -- are predominantly manufactured by the government. As an untalented youth, that means you cannot get a job as a clerk at Lowe's, regardless of your current grasp of the foolishness of drug use. When the government prevents you from existing any other way besides being a dope peddler, of course it is moral to exist rather than to die.

Fundamentally, you have to view the question from two completely different perspectives -- when force and rights-violations are involved, and when men are free to act according to their judgment. It would be insane to think that the concrete conclusions from one context easily translate to the other context.

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...