• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

Is drug dealing unethical/immoral?

Runningfox said:
Was their selling Pledge immoral?


Or .... was simply, one young lady's use of this product Detrimental to herself and therefore personally irresponsible?
I think the Latter.
Click to expand...

That's exactly what Big Lemon Pledge wants you to think.

But you can think of cases where the merchant is shady, and so is the customer, right? Whatever virtue measure you're using, it doesn't have to add up to 100. They can both still be unethical, and neither's actions excuse the others'. Responsibility is a separate issue from the morality of it.
 
I think from all that we've stated, the answer is yes, no, maybe, and sometimes.

It really depends on all the factors, it isn't inherently immoral, it's the details that outline the morality.
 
No matter how you try to excuse it, most people who sell hard drugs are pieces of shit filth retards, who wouldn't piss on your head if it was on fire.
 
Were they "pieces of shit filth retards" before they started selling? Or did the selling turn them into that?

Whatever, I'm with tubbs.
 
The real question is why would you want them to piss on your burning head, I imagine ammonia in burns wouldn't feel great. I'd prefer water, but you do you.
 
bptubbs said:
I think from all that we've stated, the answer is yes, no, maybe, and sometimes.

It really depends on all the factors, it isn't inherently immoral, it's the details that outline the morality.
Click to expand...

Could we propose a way to iron out the immoral facets by quantifying what they are? Number one would have to be a dealer selling adulterated goods or misleading a user as to the actual contents of their product.
 
Selling underweight or inventing ridiculous origin stories.
Click to expand...
That always makes for a tough slog when you're a bluelight geek, and general disagreer.

"The reason the acid lasted so long is that the cook added a preservative so you don't have to keep it in the fridge"

......
 
In BC we had a new drug dealing issue this last year and a half. Fentanyl has been mixed into other drugs, or at least the media are reporting vague stories that keep referring to a fentanyl crisis. Some reports warned of it being mixed into the marijuana supply.... As a drug user I can't imagine why anyone would mix fentanyl into weed but it would be an immoral act in my opinion to 'roofie your customer with a deadly drug. That said it is also immoral for our government and media to fabricate stories to scare the children from buying weed off black market dealers.

I think in all professions the greed for money/profit is the cause of 99% of immorality and drugs have no greater immoralality than any other area. Which brings the question who is more immoral, the drug dealer/user or those who fabricate lies to make war on drugs? In my personal desire to be better educated on the drugs I use I found government was one of the least accurate information sources either misleading or incomplete information with scare tactics phrases using words like poison. In many areas the ignorance of people pretending to be educated on the use of drugs is second only to their confidant misinformation.
 
Ok i got a scenario:

If a person is withdrawing and is clearly suffering, should you give them their drug? (Assuming it's not life-threatening, you're both users so you don't have any substitutes for them, and you're not worried about you're personal supply.)

is the short-term relief justified, if it may only prolong their use?
 
If a person is withdrawing and asks for a drug, I would give it to them. But then, if it was theirs, I"d give it to them if they weren't withdrawing too.

Are they trying to kick it you mean? Like white knuckle their way to sobriety? Unless we'd made a deal before, I might go slow and resist briefly, but I'd give it to them, yes.
 
I don't disagree that morality can be quite subjective and hard to nail down. But I do think some things are morally wrong in a more objective sense.

It close enough anyway.
 
I think you can draw a line that 95% of humanity will agree on, like, killing children just cause they talk back to you. Or, you could define certain terms.

Like, a goal for ethical living would be to not increase suffering. It's still hazy, but that's your foundation, and you could add your various virtues, like working to alleviate suffering, and how well you're aware of the suffering you do cause. Like, it's not just that you don't knowingly cause suffering, but that you aren't willfully ignorant of it.

(And I'm not judging the person here, each person's individual acts are at issue)

That sets immorality as just knowingly causing more suffering in the world. And obviously that can be just hurting someone's feelings on purpose, to genocide. You don't get measured, but some things are still worse than others.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top