American Excess

[lookout123]

Your entire argument and apparently view of life is based on the shifting sands of moral relativeism. If something is right, it is right. If it is wrong, it is wrong. A feeling that doing the "wrong" thing is easier and "not that unusual" doesn't make it right.

I happen to have had more than a passing knowledge about the drug industry. First hand knowledge, not something from a book or a sociology class. So let's take your example. You've established that it is ok for someone to choose to sell pot rather than get a legal job because it is easier, makes more money, and it's just a silly law anyway. If I, with my knowledge and resources, choose to leave my job tomorrow and work strictly in the arena of marijuana I could certainly double or even triple my income practically overnight. I could do this with little risk of being caught, certainly no risk of jail, and the only real risk I would be taking would be loss of capital. Would my decision to deal drugs be right? Or would I be a criminal worthy of punishment?

If it makes it easier let's put it in "reality". I can take a $20,000 investment today, scrub it so that there is no connection to me, and turn that $20K into approximately $50K in a month. Would that be right or wrong for me to do?

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by lookout123

Your entire argument and apparently view of life is based on the shifting sands of moral relativeism. If something is right, it is right. If it is wrong, it is wrong.

That is, however, not the same as legal and illegal.

Would my decision to deal drugs be right? Or would I be a criminal worthy of punishment?

You would be a criminal, by definition. The other two questions (right or wrong, and worthy of punishment) are more up in the air.

[lookout123]

Not so much HM. If I knowingly broke the law I am wrong for doing so and worthy of punishment. Weighing the odds and deciding it is worth the risk doesn't make my decision right or any less worthy of punishment.

And before anyone goes off the deepend and says "what about Rosa Parks???" With the thinly veiled "you're a racist" left hanging, I'll answer. She knowingly and boldly broke the law and made herself worthy of punishment. She took the risk of very real punishment with the higher ideal of drawing attention to a law she felt was immoral and wrong. I happen to agree with her cause and am glad she chose to do it, but it doesn't change the fact that she did break the law and risked real punishment.

I've yet to meet an illegal who says "I illegally crossed the border in broad daylight in front of witnesses so that I might challenge and rectify this social injustice that you call legal immigration". They sneek in, they hide their status, and they make no political or social point. Far different than the high-minded civil rights movement. So yes, they intentionally broke the law, that puts them in the wrong and worthy of the punishment allowed by that law.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by lookout123

Your entire argument and apparently view of life is based on the shifting sands of moral relativeism. If something is right, it is right. If it is wrong, it is wrong. A feeling that doing the "wrong" thing is easier and "not that unusual" doesn't make it right.

Yes, I a do have some influences of moral relativism but I do this for deeper reasons. Because of this I have to ask this question, why do you consider dealing marijuana morally worse than getting a job recognized by the government? I personally think it is morally wrong to illegalize marijuana so someone breaking the law is not immoral, but not moral either. Keep in mind, this also coming from someone whose perspective is that social laws, while very important, are not all powerful. I think your perspective involves putting social laws higher up than me on importance, which might cause some differences.

If I, with my knowledge and resources, choose to leave my job tomorrow and work strictly in the arena of marijuana I could certainly double or even triple my income practically overnight. I could do this with little risk of being caught, certainly no risk of jail, and the only real risk I would be taking would be loss of capital. Would my decision to deal drugs be right? Or would I be a criminal worthy of punishment?

You should be punished if caught because it is a law even if you disagree with it. The problem is that I see the law of illegal marijuana as an unjustifiable law so that means breaking an unjustifiable law isn't immoral. I wouldn't say it is moral, but it wouldn't be immoral. Drug dealing is just the result of the capitalist system. There is a demand for drugs but no legal supply for illegal drugs. That means, to meet the demand, drug dealers will have to break the law to meet the demand and make money. If drugs were legalized, the demand for an underground drug system would go away, making it a reaction of the drug laws. I am not advocating that it is moral to fulfill the free market demand, but that there is a flaw within the system and it is rational for people that are willing to take the risk of being caught to gain profit off this flaw. Like I said earlier, assuming we are talking about safe drug trafficking, I still wouldn't call it moral because you are breaking a law, but I wouldn't call it immoral because that law is unjustifiable.

If it makes it easier let's put it in "reality". I can take a $20,000 investment today, scrub it so that there is no connection to me, and turn that $20K into approximately $50K in a month. Would that be right or wrong for me to do?

Honestly, I know shit about investing so I don't know what technique you are talking about.

And before anyone goes off the deepend and says "what about Rosa Parks???"

I've yet to meet an illegal who says "I illegally crossed the border in broad daylight in front of witnesses so that I might challenge and rectify this social injustice that you call legal immigration".

You are getting into morality levels. Rosa Parks would be considered at a level five stage of morality because she purposely broke the law to make a point about how it is unjustifiable. The illegal immigrants would probably be at a level two stage because they know illegally crossing the border is illegal and "technically" wrong because of it but they they are doing it because they need money. I want to make this clear, just because someone demonstrates stage two (you can make an argument for three but thats makes it more complicated and doesn't change much) morality, it doesn't mean they are still in the pre-conventional stage, but that they are probably forced into it. That is the main factor with me.

But you do bring up a good point. Technically it is immoral to cross the border illegally because immigration laws are not unjust, from my perspective at least, but that doesn't mean that these people are immoral people, just that they are forced into making a decision of breaking a law and doing something immoral and letting their family starve, which can be seen as immoral from other perspectives.

I agree with you that most make the decision because they are choosing self-interest, not seeing their family starve, over breaking the law but there can be other methods.

For a level three example, if society says that feeding your family is more important than following the law, this action would not be seen as immoral, but moral, from that society's perspective. This is something that we might have to look into further as well. It might not just be a conflict of interests, but a conflict of cultural morals as well.

For a level five, one would have to sacrifice to make a point, which you pointed out that no one is doing.

For a level six, I can't think of a situation that would show this by crossing the border.