I will finish my points without addressing you directly.
Yeah, like that was going to work.
You and I obviously have very different notions of morality. I don't consider character flaws inherently immoral. I don't consider irresponsible behavior inherently immoral. I don't consider unethical behavior inherently immoral. I don't approve of any other those things, I just don't apply the word, immoral, to them. It looks like it's just semantics to me.
Drug use could be a character flaw. It could be irresponsible. If you and Bush are using the term, immoral, to cover all negative aspects of a person's behavior or character, then I guess it could be immoral, too.
But I still don't think it necessarily would. If, for example, an artist uses a safe drug in a controlled environment to enhance artistic creativity, I don't see how that is either irresponsible or a character flaw. If someone needs drugs to help him sleep due to some earlier trauma he can't shake, I don't think that's a character flaw or irresponsible or immoral.
Most of recreational drug use is probably triggered by character flaws, but if the user doesn't use drugs in a way that is irresponsible to others, I don't see the immorality.
I think of immorality as a warp of one's character of a sociopathic nature, not foolishness or weakness or self-indulgence of forgetfulness. Those things don't make you bad, just not as evolved as you could be.
Probably just definitional.
Karen |
