Using Marijuana May Not Raise the Risk of Using Harder Drugs (but look at alternative explanation)

RAND's Drug Policy Research Center ^ | December 2, 2002 | RAND's Drug Policy Research Center

[unspun]

Well, agree with some of your revulsion, if not ad hominem sentiments.

...redefine morals and ethics DOWN by giving both of those words little value in their limited vocabulary.

I'd particularly feature this statement. I believe this is a consequense of taking an "objectivist" view of ethics and morality. A part of the fundamental discrepancy between American political philosophy and much of libertarian thought is that the former is based upon self-evident truths (including natural law theory of law) while the Ayn Rand style libertarian tries to look only at cause and effect (something unnatural and counterintuitive and prone to resistance and breakdown even in their own minds).

[tacticalogic]

I'd particularly feature this statement. I believe this is a consequense of taking an "objectivist" view of ethics and morality.

Have you considered the potential ramifications of making ethics and morality subjective?

[unspun]

Have you considered the potential ramifications of making ethics and morality subjective?

IMHO, they are what they are, objective to us and subjective for us to God. But they may be ascertained by subjective means as well as objective. In any case, they are proven as they apply to law, by the taste of the pudding. There, the more objective, the better, but not at the risk of cutting them off from subjective considerations.

How's that for a walk around the yard?

[tacticalogic]

It sounds like you are opposed to an objectivist view of morality and ethics only to the degree, and insofar as it interferes with defining them according to your own subjective standards.

[unspun]

...maybe so! ;-` Except that my plea is that they are not my standards. Someone else owns them, to whom I am accountable in my interpretation.

[unspun]

I suppose that could be called objectivity* subject to the Author.

*as distinct from objectivism

[A CA Guy]

I agree.
That is a great example of how the smoking laws in California came about.
Thanks, great point!

[tacticalogic]

Except that my plea is that they are not my standards. Someone else owns them, to whom I am accountable in my interpretation.

All well and good. But I think that if you propose that we base our laws, particularly federal laws on those interpretations, and seek agreement from us, then you are accountable to us in that interpretation.

[unspun]

Yes!

And that's reflected that in the Constitution's bottom line, our friendly state legislatures hold the blueprints.

(And beneath the bottomm line, the People hold both ballots and guns.)

[unspun]

I'm also saying that America has been very negligent its adherence to the Constitution (in holding to it, and in bringing it along, very stingily with us).

[tacticalogic]

I think there's a little more to it than that, if we're going to arrive at a workable solution.

[unspun]

Yeah - but that's details.

[tacticalogic]

The details better include some objective reasons, or people are going to view it as arbitrary. People have a tendency to rebel against arbitrary laws and regulations, and this is not a bad thing, IMHO.

[tacticalogic]

Feeling smarmy today, eh?

[tacticalogic]

I suppose that could be called objectivity* subject to the Author.

*as distinct from objectivism

Apparently the solution to the dilema is to simply make objectivity subjective.

[unspun]

Objective reasons, truly.

Objectivity, as much as is in our power.

[tacticalogic]

Objectivity, as much as is in our power.

Aye. Yet none of us is capable of being truly objective on every subject. The best we can hope for is to be able to recognize the areas and circumstances where we are not, and act accordingly.

[unspun]

..act accordingly, by adhering to the principles that are gained from our experience (all kinds of experience) and applied and tested and adjusted, according to the full set of wisdom and knowledge that we may seek and acquire.

[tacticalogic]

act accordingly, by adhering to the principles that are gained from our experience (all kinds of experience) and applied and tested and adjusted, according to the full set of wisdom and knowledge that we may seek and acquire.

And what should we do in those instances that call for the application of wisdom and knowlege that we have chosen not to seek and acquire?

[unspun]

Then, it's acquired nevertheless.