The Morality of Narcotics Use

Question 1

Ethical Inquiry: Applied Ethics

Answer 1

a branch within ethical theory

Applies philosophical concepts, values, and ideas to areas of particular moral debate.

• to see if there are rationally grounded answers to moral problems
• to test the intelligibility and plausibility of our values, theories, and ideals

Question 2

Legalization

Answer 2

Legal permissibility of possession and consumption with oversight and control in production, distribution, and consumption.

Question 3

Prohibition

Answer 3

Legally prohibited possession, consumption, production, and distribution.

Question 4

Decriminalization

Answer 4

Removal of legal prohibition, but lacks legal sanction of possession, consumption, production, and distribution (or some of mix thereof).

Question 5

Moral vs. political and legal considerations

Answer 5

Arguments of morality of immorality is distinct from whether we should legalize or prohibit the act.
(not immoral =/= it’s moral to consume)

Whether it’s necessary and desirable to have the law restrict the liberties of its citizens are quite distinct from whether and why consumption is right or wrong.

Differences exist between narcotics as well (some think cannabis should be legal, while heroine, illegal – distinction between complete vs. partial prohibition etc.)

Question 6

Moral Arguments Against Consumption

Answer 6

1) It is immoral to engage in an activity that harms oneself
2) Consuming narcotics harms oneself
3) Therefore consuming narcotics is immoral (and should be refrained from or even legally prohibited)

Question 7

Deontological Style Argument Against Consumption

Answer 7

1) It is immoral to engage in an activity that undermines one’s status as a rational agent.
2) Consuming narcotics harms this capacity (undermines episodal judgement, shortcuts rational reflection on wants/desire/ and obligations)
3) Therefore consuming narcotics is immoral

Question 8

How good is the harm argument?

Answer 8

Self-harm is usually an appropriate ground for interference in a person’s behaviour.

There are many activities that seem harmful that don’t illicit the charge of immorality:

• Drinking alcohol, caffeine, playing football, Hockey, MMA, Sky Diving, taking prescription medicine, joining the Military Etc.
• These seem acceptable, therefore consuming narcotics seems to be on a moral par

Certain behaviours are wrong because others are harmed by our actions: flying a plane while high on heroine seems morally wrong – but the wrongness is not in the act of consuming heroine per se, but what one does under its influence

Question 9

Autonomy in the Harm Argument

Answer 9

The tendency is to favor autonomy: an autonomous person has a claim to non interference in their affairs and can weigh the risks of her actions

This does not entail that correct decision making always occurs, but we can assume that a morally desirable life is one lead by a person’s own lights even when harm results as a products of her free, informed, and voluntary choice.

Question 10

How about the Kantian style Argument?

Answer 10

Hard to know just when rationality is compromised in individuals given that the effects of use in any given episode depend on a host of factors

So at best, extreme usage on occasion, or daily usage in great quantities seems immoral, but that would occur only in contexts in which persons were rationally immobilized.

But should we even be convinced of that? (say Johhny goes to a festival and takes special K – he tells his friends to look after him, because he knows he will be enable to take care of himself. They do – did Johnny do something wrong?)

Question 11

Utilitarian arguments for Prohibition

Answer 11

1) Actions that harm others are immoral
2) Narcotics use tends to lead those who consume, to harm others
3) Therefore narcotics use is immoral

If one could show that narcotics use by persons, leads them to harm others, than one could show that narcotics use is prima facie wrong.

• But that would only matter in cases where there is a clear link to others, as in the case with alcohol.
• Cigarette smoking would suggest a limitation to said argument.

Question 12

Is the general Utilitarian argument Convincing?

Answer 12

The utility of consumption and production (e.g. getting high, engaging in exchange behaviour) may be overridden by the disutilities stemming from:

• the effects of consumption on the person (e.g. less money to spend on more important goods, more sick days from work, smellier neighborhoods, etc);
• trafficking and production (e.g. land and water used for drugs instead of crops needed to ameliorate food shortages, fights between rival gangs for control market control and access, or monopoly behaviour by firms);
• in control to ensure only adults use the product (e.g. includes a general system of surveillance and control with incarceration);
• and treatment options for the addicted.

Question 13

Moral Arguments for Consumption

Answer 13

If a person wanted to consume a narcotic, that it would be permissible for them to do so:

• Not that they should do so
• Not they it should be legally permitted either (though people do attempt that next move).

If a person is freely acting, informed with enough information of the product to avoid serious harm, acting voluntarily, then it would be permissible for them to do so.
-The view does not endorse children, legally or medically incompetent persons fro using drugs, etc.

If we allow individuals to engage in harmful behaviour, like consuming alcohol, playing hockey, living in highly polluted cities, eating fast food, drinking caffeine, refusing to exercise, then we should on pain of inconsistency, allow them to consume narcotics.