Knights & Knaves Alehouse

Is this because you think the population using these drugs would kill itself off (if the drugs were given away free)? If so, you may have a good point. Problem is, I don't think that would happen. It would become as popular as smoking in the USA (maybe more so). And then you'd have 2/3 the population of tax payers having to support the other 1/3 non-functional crack heads (I don't think any country could afford that over time). The libertarians would say, let them take care of themselves (ie. die off). But in reality, that would never happen.

Also, you'd have every person with a problem (that didn't have a good upbringing) grabbing crack to get temporary relief. Then they get addicted and even when their situation improves they are still addicted. Is that not correct, it seems logical to me? Perhaps I'm wrong. P&P, How do you see it played out in RL with this population. And do you think if it were legalized it would move into the mainstream (like drinking and tobacco smoking)?

blackprinceofmuncie wrote:I don't think I'm failing to grasp anything and, please, let's not be pedantic. I think my use of the terms moral and ethical were clearly in the context of "moral" and "ethical" equating to "morally right" and "ethically right". And my point, which you seem to have skipped over, is that a blanket statement that suicide is always a morally and ethcially wrong decision cannot be backed up by examples of people arriving at that decision through individual poor judgement or lack of character.

Pedantic? I'm sorry if that's what you think I'm doing, but you are using the terms in a generalist way, while I am trying to be as specific as possible. Ethical theory has very precise definitions of words such as murder, suicide, theft, etc., not unlike the manner in which law has similar definitions.

I don't think I skipped over your contention; suicide in the ethical sense means you are making a conscious, rational decision to end your life. Ambiguity in mental states of course factors into the permissibility of the action, but depending on which theory you are using, may not actually mean much.

As far as "accepted forms of ethics", I simply mean the mass of ethical systems commonly researched in the field. I have a feeling you are raising points of a meta-ethical nature, which might be the cause of confusion here. I am approaching the subject from a purely applied ethical stance, using established norms.

PapersAndPaychecks wrote:Suicide can be a positive moral or ethical choice.

For example:

"I am just going out and may be some time" -- last words of Captain Lawrence Oates, who in 1912 walked out into a blizzard to die in the hope that through his sacrifice, his comrades would have enough food to reach civilisation.

That's not suicide in the strict ethical usage. What you're describing is self-sacrifice for altruistic gain.

Not a fan of suicide.

Now if someone has the right to commit suicide, well it is your body and I believe in personal freedom and liberty....

...but within my religious beliefs-in the eyes of God and Christ, I believe its morally wrong but I'm not the one to pass judgment in the end.

I'm not going to tell you that you cannot do it, but I'm going to do all I can to help you reconsider your choice.

Marriat wins the thread.

Q: "That's not suicide in the strict ethical usage. What you're describing is self-sacrifice for altruistic gain."

It is suicide. That fellow could have just as easily cut his wrists outside the tents so his comrads could feed on his frozen body. Suicide is the act of taking ones own life. It doesn't matter why.

P&P is correct. Giving your life to save others can be a nobel form of suicide.
Some of the marines at Normandy that hit the beaches new they were toast (100% casualty rate for the first boats). They could have turned tail and swam back, but they kept on, knowing that the fate of their comrads coming behind them (and that of the rest of the world) rested upon what they did. It's interesting to think what might have happened if the alleys hadn't held those beaches. We might all be speaking German (given the fact that they weren't too far off from developing nukes).

AxeMental wrote:It is suicide. That fellow could have just as easily cut his wrists outside the tents so his comrads could feed on his frozen body. Suicide is the act of taking ones own life. It doesn't matter why.

No, it's not suicide.

You guys keep using the same word to refer to different acts.

AxeMental wrote:Is this because you think the population using these drugs would kill itself off (if the drugs were given away free)?

No, it's because of the math.

The average person with a crack or heroin habit spends £200 a day on drugs, roughly. From the moment they get up in the morning, they're totally focused on getting hold of the £200 they'll need when their dealer comes and knocks on their door in the evening.

So they'll go and commit ludicrous, bloody stupid crimes to get the money, because they're desperate. They'll break into someone's house, steal the DVD player and sell it to some bloke they met in the pub.

Well, the bloke they met in the pub doesn't give them very good value for stolen goods; they'll probably get around a third of their actual value. So let's say in order to get £200, they need to steal goods worth £600.

In the process of stealing the goods, they'll also break windows and do other collateral damage costing an average of £150 to repair, so the total cost to society of a crack user is about £750 a day.

The police can catch the crack user, and they often do, cos they commit dumb crimes in dumb ways (the average criminal really isn't very smart). If they catch several crack users in the same week, the crack dealer gets anxious. So he drops the price of his crack for a few weeks until he's got a nice fresh crop of junkies ready to farm for £200 a day.

Alternatively the police can catch the crack dealer, which is a bit harder. If they catch the crack dealer then they've suddenly got several desperate junkies on their hands, though--the junkies will need to get their crack from a different dealer in the next town, and the sudden shortage of crack will drive up prices, so the junkies commit even more crime so they can afford their crack. In other words, catching a crack dealer creates a crime wave.

Figure the math: one crack user costs society £750 a day = ~£275,000 a year (which is half a million dollars).

But they don't want to commit the crime. They just want the crack. It's a lot cheaper and easier to give it to them for nothing and leave them in their cardboard boxes under their bridges floating on the pink haze that's so much better than the reality of their nasty, brutish and short lives.

In the process you also wipe out all financial incentive to deal drugs, which deprives the higher-level organised crime groups of £200 per junky per day. That'd have a massive, if indirect, impact on gang violence.

I don't think legalising crack would bring it into the mainstream. The fact is, if you wanted crack, Axe, you could find someone who'll sell it to you--and so could anyone who lives in the English-speaking world. It's extremely widely available and yet few people choose to use it.

Because few people are that dumb.

Brad wrote:That's not suicide in the strict ethical usage. What you're describing is self-sacrifice for altruistic gain.

It's a conscious and voluntary decision to die.

Can you explain to me what the difference is between "a conscious and voluntary decision to die" and "suicide", please?

Brad wrote:No, it's not suicide.

You guys keep using the same word to refer to different acts.

Perhaps that would be true if we were writing a paper we were trying to get published in a philosophy journal or something. This is a gaming message board and you're having a discussion with a bunch of fellow gamers, not a panel of ethicists. The entire discussion started based on JamesEightBitStar's initial example of a willing person volunteering to be the sacrificial offering in some sort of religious/community ritual. That could conceivably be viewed as "altruistic self sacrifice". However, that choice being compared to and associated with suicide is the entire basis of the discussion. In common usage, killing yourself for altruistic reasons is still suicide and trying to enforce the use of a more restrictive, atypical definition is only going to confuse the discussion.

blackprinceofmuncie wrote:Perhaps that would be true if we were writing a paper we were trying to get published in a philosophy journal or something.

No, even then you'd get slated.

You see, Brad's position is that "Suicide is immoral." But it's also that "Killing yourself for a good moral reason is not suicide." That's perfectly self-consistent, if not tautological--but it's not philosophy. It's semantic casuistry dressed up as ethics.

When I say "suicide" I mean "voluntary self-killing", and I firmly believe Captain Lawrence Oates' suicide was a positive ethical act. I also believe there are many other examples of ethical suicides, and will cite further examples of people who were posthumously awarded the Victoria Cross if I'm challenged on that.

PapersAndPaychecks wrote:You see, Brad's position is that "Suicide is immoral." But it's also that "Killing yourself for a good moral reason is not suicide." That's perfectly self-consistent, if not tautological--but it's not philosophy. It's semantic casuistry dressed up as ethics.

Actually, my position is that "suicide is immoral", but not for the reasons you think. And it is philosophy, specifically applied ethics. It may seem like a semantics construct, but that's the analytic approach one needs to take to fully analyze acts in an ethical theory. I do agree with the sentiment that this is an rpg board, and that my arguments are probably misplaced. I have a graduate degree in this, and I teach ethics, so I usually get a little annoyed when people throw these sorts of terms around so freely. I apologize.

Brad wrote:I have a graduate degree in this, and I teach ethics, so I usually get a little annoyed when people throw these sorts of terms around so freely. I apologize.

Don't worry about it. I have the same reaction when people start using the term "cloning" in general conversation. I wonder if Gary ever felt the same way when people used the word "level" in everyday usage.

Stonegiant wrote:Sorry to say but no is truly free, we are all destined to die and most likely be forgotten by this world left behind.

And that negates freedom... how, exactly?

First of all, I fault your premises. Nobody is "destined" to do anything. Even death isn't really inevitable. Consider: Centuries ago men had lifespans of thirty years, tops. Today our life expectancy is three times more than that, and getting longer. I have no doubt in my mind that immortality is (or at least, will eventually be) a valid option.

Secondly, even given the idea that death is inevitable, that doesn't in any way restrict what we are or should be allowed to do with the rest of our life, or our afterlife if there is such a thing.

Suicide is a no win situation (I am not talking self sacrifice or the terminally ill with no hope of pain or recovery, those fall under self sacrifice and euthanasia),

Umm... yeah. Couch it in whatever terminology you want, but suicide is suicide.

if you are a religious person (correct me if I am wrong) than suicide (the killing of oneself because life has gotten to be to much or your to sad, etc.) is wrong and I don't know of any religion that condones death by ones own hand for these reasons,

I may be wrong on this (I don't exactly study them) but I'm pretty sure some Eastern religions do.

primarily because one will deny oneself a place in the afterlife or a crappy reincarnation. If you are not a religious person ending ones life for these reasons is really rather foolish because because than in your belief there is nothing else beyond this life.

Wait, what? So if I'm nonreligious I don't have a concept of/belief in the afterlife? I could see that if I was an atheist, but you can not follow any known religions without being an atheist.

True freedom comes from the unchaining of your mind and the thirst and quest for knowledge, enlightenment, etc.

... Call me dense but I don't get what that has to do with freedom. Freedom is the ability to do what you want, when you want to, and take your life in any direction you so choose. Ergo, a truly free person could choose to remain backwards and ignorant, if he so desired.

Just as a technical note if you kill yourself what can the law do to you?

GEORGE SPIGGOT: In less enlightened times, they used to hang you for it.

I think technically they can't do anything--I mean, you're dead. However I seem to recall hearing that suicide is indeed a crime you can be arrested for, and I think they can deny your living friends and relatives any insurance or inheritance they would normally have gotten upon your death if your death was a suicide.

Course the answer to that is simple: Give it to them as a gift before you croak.

Part of the problem with suicide these days is that it has become romanticized and put on a pedestal as heroic.

Only in fantasy fiction. And then only if you're a Knight of Solamnia, or a Samurai.

Most suicide conversations I've had with people give me the idea that real people take a dim view of Suicidees. At best, they're people to feel sorry for. At worst, they're pathetic sacks of dung. I've never seen anyone hold a real suicide up as heroic, except in the case of "dying to save another."

As to the person trying to commit suicide sure everyone should be concerned with that person because as cliche as it sounds the act of trying to commit suicide (as defined) is really a cry for help.

That's a debate I'm not quite prepared to deal with. Suffice to say in my experience with suicidal people I'm not quite sure that's true.

PapersAndPaychecks wrote:

AxeMental wrote:Is this because you think the population using these drugs would kill itself off (if the drugs were given away free)?

No, it's because of the math.

The average person with a crack or heroin habit spends £200 a day on drugs, roughly. From the moment they get up in the morning, they're totally focused on getting hold of the £200 they'll need when their dealer comes and knocks on their door in the evening.

So they'll go and commit ludicrous, bloody stupid crimes to get the money, because they're desperate. They'll break into someone's house, steal the DVD player and sell it to some bloke they met in the pub.

Well, the bloke they met in the pub doesn't give them very good value for stolen goods; they'll probably get around a third of their actual value. So let's say in order to get £200, they need to steal goods worth £600.

In the process of stealing the goods, they'll also break windows and do other collateral damage costing an average of £150 to repair, so the total cost to society of a crack user is about £750 a day.

The police can catch the crack user, and they often do, cos they commit dumb crimes in dumb ways (the average criminal really isn't very smart). If they catch several crack users in the same week, the crack dealer gets anxious. So he drops the price of his crack for a few weeks until he's got a nice fresh crop of junkies ready to farm for £200 a day.

Alternatively the police can catch the crack dealer, which is a bit harder. If they catch the crack dealer then they've suddenly got several desperate junkies on their hands, though--the junkies will need to get their crack from a different dealer in the next town, and the sudden shortage of crack will drive up prices, so the junkies commit even more crime so they can afford their crack. In other words, catching a crack dealer creates a crime wave.

Figure the math: one crack user costs society £750 a day = ~£275,000 a year (which is half a million dollars).

But they don't want to commit the crime. They just want the crack. It's a lot cheaper and easier to give it to them for nothing and leave them in their cardboard boxes under their bridges floating on the pink haze that's so much better than the reality of their nasty, brutish and short lives.

In the process you also wipe out all financial incentive to deal drugs, which deprives the higher-level organised crime groups of £200 per junky per day. That'd have a massive, if indirect, impact on gang violence.

I don't think legalising crack would bring it into the mainstream. The fact is, if you wanted crack, Axe, you could find someone who'll sell it to you--and so could anyone who lives in the English-speaking world. It's extremely widely available and yet few people choose to use it.

Because few people are that dumb.

Man English crackheads must be a separate breed from American crackheads.