Objectivism and Recreational drug usage


BMXXX

Recommended Posts

(Note: I dislike this being in "addiction", as addiction isn't an inherently present effect in all recreational drug usage, but it is most appropriate spot on these boards)

Okay, objectivism would hold that rational adults be allowed to use recreational drugs - I'd like to hear any objectivist objections to, say, being able to grab a pound of meth at a local store.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, objectivism would hold that rational adults be allowed to use recreational drugs - I'd like to hear any objectivist objections to, say, being able to grab a pound of meth at a local store.

1, jts's reply pretty much sums up the specific case of meth.

2. You need to differentiate Objectivism from Libertarianism. Even if the extraordinary physical degradation from methamphetamine were not a consequence, an Objectivist holds their mind as a primary value. Any consequential diminuition of health, especially mental health, is not "allowed" by Objectivism, any more than would be cutting off a finger for the rush.

3. That said, your own happiness is your highest value. Rand's novels portray otherwise rational people drinking alcohol and smoking cigarettes. The specifics aside, metaphysically, it is known that many pleasurable food-like and organically-derived materials are available, for instance, vitamins. I feel good when I take them. (Niacin gives you a heat flash.) Are they a "recreational" drug? Runners in particular, but those who exercise generally, also report feeling euphoric, which is associated with the release of endorphins. Is exercise a "drug"? Can you become "addicted" to it? Those are (perhaps intriguing) medical questions, but on the philosophical level, if what you do does not harm you and leaves you feeling good, then you should not refrain from it. ... but that goes back to Aristotle, does it not?

4. In terms of mild drugs with mild - though undeniable - affect such as alcohol and tobacco (or marijuana for the Libertarians), the old joke come to mind. The man asks his doctor how to live longer. "Give up smoking, drinking, and sex," the MD says. The man asks, "Will I live to be 100?" The doctor replies, "No, but it will seem like it." The point is that we all have a finite time to live and how you enjoy it is your business, given, again, as above, that you pursue your own best interests according to reason as informed by reality.

4a. A cogent scene in The Fountainhead contrasts Howard Roark admiring his achievement at Monandack Valley while a car full of kids loud, raucous, with nothing in mind but the immediate present zooms past. For a rational person, achievement via the mind, is a high value. Roark's having a beer with Mike Donnegan in a speakeasy is far removed from falling into alcoholism - as Henry Cameron finally did - which would leave him supremely unproductive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the subject of taking poisons for pleasure:

First I quote from the Ayn Rand Lexicon on the subject of hedonism. http://aynrandlexico...n/hedonism.html

I am profoundly opposed to the philosophy of hedonism. Hedonism is the doctrine which holds that the good is whatever gives you pleasure and, therefore, pleasure is the standard of morality. Objectivism holds that the good must be defined by a rational standard of value, that pleasure is not a first cause, but only a consequence, that only the pleasure which proceeds from a rational value judgment can be regarded as moral, that pleasure, as such, is not a guide to action nor a standard of morality. To say that pleasure should be the standard of morality simply means that whichever values you happen to have chosen, consciously or subconsciously, rationally or irrationally, are right and moral. This means that you are to be guided by chance feelings, emotions and whims, not by your mind. My philosophy is the opposite of hedonism. I hold that one cannot achieve happiness by random, arbitrary or subjective means. One can achieve happiness only on the basis of rational values. By rational values, I do not mean anything that a man may arbitrarily or blindly declare to be rational. It is the province of morality, of the science of ethics, to define for men what is a rational standard and what are the rational values to pursue.

Playboy Interview: Ayn Rand

Playboy, March 1964

Applying this to smoking:

Hedonism: Smoking is good because it gives me pleasure.

Objectivism: Smoking is good; therefore it gives me pleasure.

Ditto for any other recreational taking of poison.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

jts, the medical consequences of smoking were known for centuries. The fact is, though, that until recent times, many other things would kill you first. Furthermore, if not for government regulations, the pharmaceutical industry could be producing safe and beneficial recreational drugs, creativity enhancers, waking-dream inducers, gestalt perceivers, or whatever. We have such paltry choices because of socialism.

We really need to examine each item in context. Coffee and tea, for example, are also generally considered good for you, though coffee has been revealed to be bad (for some people). And "tea" is a broad term: green, black, leaves, twigs,... They are CNS stimulants; they activate the mind. Tea also kills germs, which, apparently, coffee does not. On that basis, is tea more rational a choice than coffee?

Other herbs have other affects. Valerian root is the source of valium just as white willow bark is the source of aspirin. Aspirin minimizes your risk from stroke and being an analgesic leaves you feeling somewhat euphoric. But aspirin comes with a risk: as it is a "blood thinner" once you start bleeding - say from a household injury - you might not stop easily or quickly.

This opens the question of risks in general. You might seek to avoid all risks by not leaving the house, but if you look at large table of accidents, you will see that being at home can be riskier than being on a jetliner. Each risk must be assessed in context.

All of that being true, you did identify the key question of hedonism versus rational values.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, objectivism would hold that rational adults be allowed to use recreational drugs - I'd like to hear any objectivist objections to, say, being able to grab a pound of meth at a local store.

4. In terms of mild drugs with mild - though undeniable - affect such as alcohol and tobacco (or marijuana for the Libertarians), the old joke come to mind. The man asks his doctor how to live longer. "Give up smoking, drinking, and sex," the MD says. The man asks, "Will I live to be 100?" The doctor replies, "No, but it will seem like it." The point is that we all have a finite time to live and how you enjoy it is your business, given, again, as above, that you pursue your own best interests according to reason as informed by reality.

but isn't "pursuing your own best interests according to reason as informed by reality" subjective? A person't reality is different from one moment to the next and from that person to the next. It's the same with what is in one's best interests. That's constantly changing. Perhaps what is in one's best interest from their point of view is to use recreational drugs because they think the girl they wanna fuck will be impressed, because sometimes what's in our best interests is a little sex. But I wonder,is there anything that can be consistently applied to be "in one's best interests". I don't think that's possible because what's "in one's best interests" is constantly changing, is it not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aristocrates,

There's reality, there's perception of reality, and there's volition.

There's good and bad according to each of these standards, but reality will have the final say on what happens. This means you cannot eliminate its influence.

For instance, eating food to survive (using reality as the standard) is definitely in ones best interests and that is universal with the other two standards. If your perception of reality, or your volition tell you that you must stop eating food to survive, I suggest you have an unhealthy mind. (I don't mean stop eating so much food. I mean stop eating food altogether, like many bulimic girls wish they could do.)

Note that this uses the standard of healthy/unhealthy instead of good/evil. That's a reality thing.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

but then I get to thinking about how it's the denial of reality that causes men to do great things, but that's reality at work again. Reality acts as a reference point. Reality drove the men to Imagine something better.

edit: see what I mean? if we can't recognize the reality we're in then how can we get out of it? Sometimes, the only thing to do is wait, because reality is constantly changing, anyways! :smile:

edit 2: reality works against us some time, when we fail to imagine a better reality than what we had at one point in the past. when death is facing us, how do we deal with that reality? Maybe by accepting the reality that we aren't the center of the universe, that life will go on for other people, that more people have died than are living today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, what I wanna know is how many OL users have posted while under the influence? I haven't :cool:

Some of my best posts have been after several drinks. Sorta like drinking makes you a better driver, says the drunk. Some were immediately deleted--I wasn't that drunk--or left in place--I was that drunk. I gave up the hard liquor recently so I wouldn't get throat cancer. Last night I had two Dos Equis. (I don't always drink beer . . . .)

--Brant

to know me is to love me--yeah, right

I'm not "the most interesting man in the world"; if I were I'd be making a fortune in advertising gigs; being the second most interesting isn't worth a bucket of warm spit--take it from me

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ca

What's with the Mexican beer? Will your insane campaign against Canada never end?

Carol

Mooseheadhead

Canada's not a country. It's a suburb of the United States inhabited by people who don't want to be Americans.

--Brant

Mexico's not a country--it's a suburb of America inhabited by people who want to be United Statesians

"Poor Mexico--so far from God, so close to the United States."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, what I wanna know is how many OL users have posted while under the influence? I haven't :cool:

I joined OL on New Years Eve.

That's all I'm saying.

So far it is not like being in the movie where you wake up in Las Vegas married to a stranger.

Not always,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I am NOT TROLLING!! Very sorry for any impressions to the contrary!!

Okay, objectivism would hold that rational adults be allowed to use recreational drugs - I'd like to hear any objectivist objections to, say, being able to grab a pound of meth at a local store.

1, jts's reply pretty much sums up the specific case of meth.

2. You need to differentiate Objectivism from Libertarianism. Even if the extraordinary physical degradation from methamphetamine were not a consequence, an Objectivist holds their mind as a primary value. Any consequential diminuition of health, especially mental health, is not "allowed" by Objectivism, any more than would be cutting off a finger for the rush.

3. That said, your own happiness is your highest value. Rand's novels portray otherwise rational people drinking alcohol and smoking cigarettes. The specifics aside, metaphysically, it is known that many pleasurable food-like and organically-derived materials are available, for instance, vitamins. I feel good when I take them. (Niacin gives you a heat flash.) Are they a "recreational" drug? Runners in particular, but those who exercise generally, also report feeling euphoric, which is associated with the release of endorphins. Is exercise a "drug"? Can you become "addicted" to it? Those are (perhaps intriguing) medical questions, but on the philosophical level, if what you do does not harm you and leaves you feeling good, then you should not refrain from it. ... but that goes back to Aristotle, does it not?

4. In terms of mild drugs with mild - though undeniable - affect such as alcohol and tobacco (or marijuana for the Libertarians), the old joke come to mind. The man asks his doctor how to live longer. "Give up smoking, drinking, and sex," the MD says. The man asks, "Will I live to be 100?" The doctor replies, "No, but it will seem like it." The point is that we all have a finite time to live and how you enjoy it is your business, given, again, as above, that you pursue your own best interests according to reason as informed by reality.

4a. A cogent scene in The Fountainhead contrasts Howard Roark admiring his achievement at Monandack Valley while a car full of kids loud, raucous, with nothing in mind but the immediate present zooms past. For a rational person, achievement via the mind, is a high value. Roark's having a beer with Mike Donnegan in a speakeasy is far removed from falling into alcoholism - as Henry Cameron finally did - which would leave him supremely unproductive.

1. I used meth as an example because it would evoke such imagery. I'm presuming then that the substance's effects DO have implications for "okay / not"? I guess I view the negative side effects as of relatively little/no consequence when determining rights.

2. While I am interested in the more "superficial" legality/rights aspect, this is kind of what I was hoping to touch upon. The mind is a primary value, and I agree - HOWEVER, in many circumstances, drugs do not degrade, but ENHANCE, the mind. Whether it's steroids in sports, acid for enlightenment, or simply caffeine for productiveness(or methamphetamine/amphetamine in rand's case), drugs absolutely are NOT automatically a negative (they're not automatically anything, they're tools which, clearly, are misused far more than not).

So, I'll give you that being a junky is, w/o doubt, contrary to objectivist principles. However, I hold(lol) that objectivism does not demand abstinence.

3. This is what i was hoping to get at. Drugs as "an end", of sorts, if I'm saying that correctly. Whether it is using acid for recreation (an end), or amphetamines for productivity (means), drugs are not automatically in conflict with objectivist ideology (and note that I'm talking drug *consumption*. Drug *production*/distribution, on the other hand, are clearly NOT in conflict with objectivist ideology, provided they're carried out strictly laissez faire.

4. Good point - although I cannot understand how people continue to consider alcohol a "soft drug" when it really isn't.

I will get back to more points later this afternoon, I just wanted to get something in here so it would't seem I dropped this thread just to mess with ppl/troll lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... I hold(lol) that objectivism does not demand abstinence.

BMXXX,

I, personally, don't use this kind of language. Whenever I see someone saying "Objectivism demands" or "Objectivism says" and so on, I generally see a guru wannabee hiding in the corner. (And where there are guru wannabees, there are disciple wannabees, those pointed to as scapegoats and the whole mess...)

You can look at Objectivism as a mold or framing story (or set of rules) and you can try to squish your life into it, or you can look at it as merely a body of ideas, something akin to tools and perspectives, and use whatever makes sense to you to help you do whatever you dream of doing in living that precious life of yours. This last implies that it's OK to leave out the parts you don't agree with or don't understand.

The first perspective is tribal in nature and the goal is to convert the whole world to become a member of the tribe. This is usually called "saving mankind" or something like that. These are the folks who talk about Objectivism demanding stuff.

The second--the one I hold--is aimed at the individual seeking the horizon of wisdom in the very selfish manner of trying to live the best life he can with what he's got and what he can make happen. In other words, he sets the standards as the final authority in his life. Objectivism does not.

The first dreams of changing the world by changing other people. The second dreams of getting the best life has to offer--and only then worrying about changing others if that is relevant to his interests.

As you can probably discern from between the lines, I'm not a big fan of Objectivist missionaries.

On your concerns about legalizing drugs and being able to buy them freely, I won't go into it right now because addiction is more complicated than the frame of expression of free will to purchase drugs can contain. Addiction robs a person's freedom.

That sounds like double-speak, so let me say in a gross manner, I am against government prohibition. But I am not against some controls on purchase like what happens with poison (cyanide and so on), medicine with strong side-effects, and other dangerous substances. But even that's an oversimplification.

Anyway, here's some fuel for your particular fire: Addiction posts from Atlantis. It's a long read, but the payoff is worth it. You will get a pretty good example of a clash between the predominant Objectivist mindset on the tribal side, like the kind I mentioned above (which I sometimes call orthodox or fundamentalist), and the individualism mindset. Then, at the end, you will get documented proof that Ayn Rand used speed as a recreational drug when she created Howard Roark.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the record using methamphetamine is so destructively stupid, merely trying to think about it makes my mind sputter.

--Brant

and here you are, posting on a board about a philosophy that was developed by an amphetamine-inspired mind.

ironic eh? :)

ALL drugs, whether meth or booze, can be used in destructively stupid manners. I'll definitely give you that meth lends itself to destructive stupidity much better than alcohol (which does so much better than pot) - do the negative potentials of specific drugs influence your thoughts on the rights of man to consume them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On your concerns about legalizing drugs and being able to buy them freely, I won't go into it right now because addiction is more complicated than the frame of expression of free will to purchase drugs can contain. Addiction robs a person's freedom.

That sounds like double-speak, so let me say in a gross manner, I am against government prohibition. But I am not against some controls on purchase like what happens with poison (cyanide and so on), medicine with strong side-effects, and other dangerous substances. But even that's an oversimplification.

Anyway, here's some fuel for your particular fire: Addiction posts from Atlantis. It's a long read, but the payoff is worth it. You will get a pretty good example of a clash between the predominant Objectivist mindset on the tribal side, like the kind I mentioned above (which I sometimes call orthodox or fundamentalist), and the individualism mindset. Then, at the end, you will get documented proof that Ayn Rand used speed as a recreational drug when she created Howard Roark.

Michael

"addiction robs a person's freedom"

Interesting thought for sure, but it's not robbing any "freedoms", as we use the word. I'm sorry that you won't go into it now - hoping you change your mind ;).

This is a 'problem' i was thinking about though - do narcotics rob free will through their effects on the brain (particularly reward pathways)? Can your free will be 'taken' by something that you willingly consumed? Once addicted to narcotics a person is inherently changed, no doubts about that, but at what stage was their freedom taken?(presuming they could have been reasonably informed of such risks beforehand)

At some point drugs almost have to be regulated; laissez faire, applied to narcotics, would have immense implications. Regardless of any ethical judgment, the impacts on health/culture/etc would be immense. If a free* drug market is a death sentence to a society, then gov control IS necessary- we must be protected from ourselves, right? But, the gov is decreasingly able to 'fight' drugs, and they're universally becoming more available / more potent / cheaper - nothing can or will stop that (perhaps evidence that the focus of "drug control" needs radical overhaul, if not for an ethical, then a practical, reason?)

[*a free drug market, where peopleadults can grab hard drugs with the ease they currently get booze/cigs...freer actually, since both of those are quite regulated.]

thank you for the link, will check that out :smile:

(WOW is that a mess of a page!! Am about halfway on it lol, good stuff)

/"used speed as a recreational drug when she created Howard Roark" I'd like to think her usage of amphetamines while creating roark was higher than just "recreational".

//but surely anyone who uses speed productively, also uses it recreationally :sad:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now