Ethical Dilemma of Recreational Drug Use

Guesses:

Deontologist:

It is bad because it is illegal in most countries

In a lot of cases, addiction causes human to abuse others, which is also illegal 

Utilitarian:

Some (soft) drugs should be legal, because they make the users happy when they are in a sad place

Soft drugs are similar to alcohol and cigarettes, which also calm people down thereby maximising happiness

However, their use should be strictly controlled, because they would otherwise harm others (or themselves)

Hard drugs should remain outlawed because it is relatively easy to OD

After research:

Deontologist:

• Drugs are bad and should, therefore, remain illegal
• What if everyone was doing it? e.g. doctor working under the influence of crystal meth
• We should work on creating an ideal environment for everyone
• Just because using drugs is convenient and would make you feel better it is not a good argument (Kant: "regulating our judgment upon a principle of convenience (i.e., on a system of eudaimonism), affords no ground of duty")
• Counterargument of same side: Every person has the right to liberty and pursuit of happiness

Utilitarian:

• Legalize!
• Police have more pressing issues to deal with
• More harmful drugs like nicotine and alcohol are legal for personal use
• It should be left up to the individual as a personal choice (they trust the person being knowledgeable and having good instinct in order to make good choices)
• Drugs such as marijuana have medical benefits
• In the case of marijuana: "Is it ethical to deny someone who has chronic pain a natural pain reliever with less harmful side effects? Most prescribed pain relievers contain acetaminophen, which can cause liver damage and failure. Then there are the other narcotics that are more susceptible to abuse and addiction."
• Lots of people get incarcerated for drug use nowadays, but this tears families apart (sometimes children are taken away) and ruins that person's chances at a better, happier future
• Money gained from taxing the use of drugs could be well spent by the government

Why I eat meat

• Protein is a necessary supplement for good health
• I do not find substitutes for meat tasty
• There is no strong evidence that avoiding meat is better for your health
• Just because you eat meat, does not mean that you advocate the abuse of animals
• Nowadays, most animals live in very good living conditions until they are butchered
• There are techniques nowadays with which minimal harm (damage) is inflicted on the animal before it is butchered
• Culturally and traditionally it is accepted to eat meat
• I am a gourmet and thereby I do not want to limit tasting good (at times exotic) food
• Biologically, humans were made to eat meat (their teeth were made that way)
• Finally, meat just tastes reeeaaaaaaally good

Relativism and Subjectivism

Relativism:
We should let cultures decide for themselves.
Pro: Cultures really are different from each other.
Cultures do have different values and principles.
Con: The definition of culture is not clear and is constantly changing.
Does not give ethical guidance for cultures on how to decide, it simply nullifies universal rules.

Subjectivism:
Every individual is free to do however they want as long as it does not hurt others.
Pro: Individuals really are different from each other.
Individuals do have different values and principles.
Con: Does not give ethical guidance for cultures on how to decide, it simply nullifies universal rules.

Nullifies obligations.

Repressed Memory Syndrome

We watched a TED Talk with Elizabeth Loftus (see below), a psychologist studying false memories. Memory is mostly repressed following a traumatic (extremely negative) event; nowadays it can be seen in victims of sexual abuse, physical abuse, or survivors of WW2. The event is so negative, that in order to subconsciously limit the consequences, the brain chooses to repress it.

On the other hand, false memories can easily be implanted, although it is highly unethical to do so (and in the work of psychotherapists, illegal, no matter if it would benefit the client). Numerous studies have been performed supporting both the negative consequences of implanting a negative memory and the positive consequences of implanting a positive memory. An instance of the latter was a study where a false memory was implanted into the participant involving the eating of asparagus having positive consequences; in a following outdoor picnic, the participant would tend to eat more of the vegetable. Loftus proposed that positive false memory implantation can be used both in pedagogy and therapy, such as the previous example being used on obese (overweight) children, thus making them eat more healthy, thereby reducing their risk of diabetes, heart failure, etc.

However, examples of the negative consequences of false memories by far outweigh the positives. One of them was how Steve Titus, who was falsely accused of rape. The victim said he looked the most like her rapist out of the lineup, the false evidence was accepted by the judge, and the man was thrown in jail. He lost his job and his fiance. When the real rapist was then caught, Titus was released, however he could not get his previous life back, having lost these things. As it turned out, 300 people have been wrongfully imprisoned, two-thirds of which because of false memories by eye-witnesses. The question posed by Loftus was, what was the thought process of the victim going from "he looks the most like the rapist" to "he was the rapist"?