Originally posted by twhitehead So I presume that the difference in your eyes must be one of degree ie you feel drink driving is so dangerous that it should be stopped outright whereas drinking in general is not dangerous enough to warrant a ban.
To drink and drive is to take a calculated risk with the lives of other people. That is what makes it immoral behaviour to me. Same goes for driving
under the influence of drugs. I cannot see how taking a drug - including alcohol - can be said to be immoral [as whodey seems to think] if it does not involve endangering others in some way.
Originally posted by twhitehead But I think your error is in thinking that your judgement is 'obvious'.
Do you think the opinions you are expressing to me are "obvious"?
I have lived long enough to know only too full well that my perspectives and judgements are not "obvious" to large, large numbers of other people. Your suggestion is a bit of a red herring.
Originally posted by FMF To drink and drive is to take a calculated risk with the lives of other people. That is what makes it immoral behaviour to me. Same goes for driving
under the influence of drugs. I cannot see how taking a drug - including alcohol - can be said to be immoral [as whodey seems to think] if it does not involve endangering others in some way.
Depending how much is being taken over time both will affect the user in a very
negative way, and if others have to depend on your for income like small children
than what say you about that? If your judgment becomes so clouded you start
making all choices around drugs or drinks than your more of a drain on others than
a help too.
Kell
Originally posted by twhitehead What if whodey judges drinking in general to be too risky?
If he wants to enact a prohibition then it is an issue for the democratic mechanism and the rule of law. He won't convince me that it should be prohibited because it is a "sin" or "immoral". But if his law was passed then I would probably not drink alcohol for fear of going to prison.
Originally posted by KellyJay Depending how much is being taken over time both will affect the user in a very
negative way, and if others have to depend on your for income like small children
than what say you about that? If your judgment becomes so clouded you start
making all choices around drugs or drinks than your more of a drain on others than
a help too.
Kell
Like I said, if one's actions [connected to alcohol intake] harm others then there is certainly a moral dimension, to my way of thinking.
Originally posted by FMF So is drinking alcohol in countries where drinking alcohol is deemed a crime. It doesn't mean, in either case, that the prohibition has a 'moral' underpinning to my way of thinking.
It doesn't necessarily have a direct moral underpinning, but both are probably partly moral in origin. The case of atheism is partly that many people (incorrectly) think that if others lack belief in a deity they are more likely to have no morals or poor morals and therefore more likely to commit crimes (or immoral acts). Or rather they have no faith in morals, but feel that people only act on fear of punishment and think that atheists have no fear of punishment by God/gods.
Of course there is also some amount of anti-atheism built into religions simply as a means to preserve the religion - not on moral grounds. This may be motivated by many things including the fact that religious people don't want to be alone in their beliefs so they would rather as many other people as possible believe the same as they do.
Originally posted by FMF Like I said, if one's actions [connected to alcohol intake] harm others then there is certainly a moral dimension, to my way of thinking.
Why if it harms others? Why not if it harms the one drinking too, even if it is a
choice being made by the one drinking doesn't that still mean something, it isn't
wrong if we destroy ourselves by bad choices?
Kelly
Originally posted by FMF To drink and drive is to take a calculated risk with the lives of other people. That is what makes it immoral behaviour to me. Same goes for driving under the influence of drugs. I cannot see how taking a drug - including alcohol - can be said to be immoral [as whodey seems to think] if it does not involve endangering others in some way.
And I say that drinking at all is to take a calculated risk with the lives of other people. It may be a fairly low risk, but it is a risk nonetheless. In fact, part of that risk is the risk that you will choose to drive.
So I say that for this reason, drinking could be said to be immoral - specifically because it does endanger others. It could also be said to be harmful to the drinker - and allowing someone to harm themselves could be said to be immoral.
Originally posted by twhitehead I think your real issue is that you disagree with the claim that being atheist is wrong.
My "real issue" is that I have a concept of freedom that involves objecting to censorious concepts of "morality" - and legal prohibitions too - that stray too far from the principles of do no harm, do not deceive, do not coerce [and do not threaten to do these things], to state it in its baldest, simplest terms. To me it's obvious. That it is not to say I reckon its obvious to you or whodey.
Originally posted by FMF I have lived long enough to know only too full well that my perspectives and judgements are not "obvious" to large, large numbers of other people. Your suggestion is a bit of a red herring.
Its just that you seem to be stating as fact things that may in reality be in dispute. You seem to be claiming that drink driving is dangerous and getting drunk is not. But you are stating them as fact, not as debatable points. I say that neither is a proven fact and both could be argued either way.
Originally posted by FMF If he wants to enact a prohibition then it is an issue for the democratic mechanism and the rule of law. He won't convince me that it should be prohibited because it is a "sin" or "immoral". But if his law was passed then I would probably not drink alcohol for fear of going to prison.
So its only a moral issue when you see a risk. When whodey sees a risk, then its not a moral issue?
Originally posted by twhitehead And I say that drinking at all is to take a calculated risk with the lives of other people. It may be a fairly low risk, but it is a risk nonetheless. In fact, part of that risk is the risk that you will choose to drive.
Well I think I have gathered this from what you've said.
So I say that for this reason, drinking could be said to be immoral - specifically because it does endanger others.
I am perfectly willing to accept this as your view if that is what it is.
What is your proposed 'political' action based on this particular view of what is and isn't "moral"?
Originally posted by twhitehead So its only a moral issue when you see a risk. When whodey sees a risk, then its not a moral issue?
I have already conceded to him that if one's drinking causes harm or risk of harm to others that I would agree that it is not "moral" behaviour. I am sure that he and I could agree on that.
Originally posted by twhitehead You seem to be claiming that drink driving is dangerous and getting drunk is not. But you are stating them as fact, not as debatable points.
If they were not "debatable points" I wouldn't be posting here, debating them. What a red herring! I am claiming that drink driving is dangerous, and I am claiming that getting drunk and doing dangerous things is dangerous.
"The Funnel"
22 Aug '12 10:51
Back to Top