Friday, April 16, 2010
Drugs and Morals
Like Breaking Bad, Weeds is another show that depicts the life of a drug dealer/producer. While watching, this clip reminded me of one of the points I was trying to make in our class discussion the other day. It's interesting how we base what is moral or right/wrong many times on what the government has decided is illegal/legal. As Shane points out in this clip, Celia is speaking about cracking down on drugs and making the community a drug free zone, yet she frequently drinks alcohol (which, although legal, is still a drug). I'm not saying I believe people should go run around and break all the laws they don't like or don't agree with. I just want to point out that it doesn't always work to make blanket statements about drugs or drug dealing. Just as the main characters of Breaking Bad and Weeds sell drugs that are mind altering, have the potential for abuse/addiction, and have the ability to harm people's bodies, alcohol and cigarette companies and all of their employees do exactly the same thing.
I guess it all depends which ethical school you base your opinions on for this issue. A deontological vs a more teleological perspective could give you drastically different opinions.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Thats very true, it very much depends upon what your beliefs are. No-matter how much we think our judgments are not bias, it is always with respect to someone's point of view. There is no absolute truth.
ReplyDelete"It's interesting how we base what is moral or right/wrong many times on what the government has decided is illegal/legal"
ReplyDeleteAs members of this society, we are bound by laws that dictate our behaviors towards other members of our society. Now as to whether the society's laws indeed enforce ethical behavior (as opposed to arbitrary behavior) is a separate argument because the ethical issue would become the laws themselves rather than the act of obeying them. My point here is that we will be judged (in general) based on the extent of our cooperation with the ethics of our society, our actions are not entirely individual.
"alcohol and cigarette companies and all of their employees do exactly the same thing."
As I pointed out in class, I don't see how one can justify bad (or unethical) behavior in terms of other bad behavior. Furthermore, I read this argument to mean that because selling one drug is considered okay, therefore selling any drug is okay. How would this be any different from stating that because selling small arms (e.g., handguns) is okay, therefore making and selling a "dirty bomb" or something along those lines is okay? Is it okay to sell any dangerous weapon because selling one type of weapon is okay? Does the ethical nature of an act in one circumstance imply that it's ethical to perform the same act in every circumstance?
I strongly agree with Aaron because if we are defining drugs as substances that alter our physiological or psychological states caffeine is also a drug and just because children can drink soda doesn't mean they should all be able to do crack. We have to make a distinction based on the STRENGTH and PREDICTABILITY of these effects and the illegal drugs as was stated in class have a larger impact on peoples lives, bodies and behaviors.
ReplyDeleteI also don't feel that clip is about legalization of drugs as much as it's about rights to privacy which has nothing to do with the issue in my opinion since the laws are not unforced in non-constitutional ways (such as surveillance).
I think drawing the line on ethical behavior when it comes to a subject such as drugs contains no absolute truth much in the same way that Deepak stated. I just wanted to point out the idea that the ways in which we draw the line for moral behavior as societies and as individuals is so incredibly variable and subject to everyones own personal T.
ReplyDeleteThat is a very true point; however, one must keep in mind that, despite the fact that our own personal truths vary, societies define antisocial behavior that is not acceptable (a sort of big truth for their members). Human beings can ethically justify anything, even if only to themselves, as history has proven many times. We can not separate our own ethics entirely from those of the society we live in or else anarchy would result. Furthermore, there is objective truth about the effects of meth on its users which has some bearing on the rationality of any ethical justification.
ReplyDeleteUltimately, I do agree with Deepak that everyone has their own personal bias, in this case I clearly have a bias toward what society has defined as acceptable. Yet this bias serves as a reference point for our views. I would say that attempting to remove all bias (or reference point) from one's self reduces the argument to one not of ethics but of rhetoric. It's basically like Socrates vs. the Sophists: Socrates realized that arguments without some objective reference point are rather pointless.
a tough movie to watch that deals with levels and sanctions of addiction is Requium for a Dream. The film is not for the faint of heart. It does prove to be a powerful statement about addiction--nothing glorious about the life style
ReplyDelete