Do we have a right to intoxicate ourselves?

Should we have a right to intoxicate ourselves?

If not why not, but if so, does it matter what intoxicating compound we imbibe?

Hi THWOTH, you got the question wrong, of course we have a right to do with ourselves as we please, the only thing to worry about is the state, and NO, they have no business telling us anything about such basics as what or who we put in ourselves. Now, whether they have the power to do so is another question.

Hi crank,

Is a right more than a legally sanctioned freedom?

Why should we have a right to intoxicate ourselves beyond or above what the law decides?

What if what we choose to put in ourselves is a harm to us or to others?

THWOTH wrote:Do we have a right to intoxicate ourselves?
Should we have a right to intoxicate ourselves?

You'll need to make your notion of "right" precise.

I think I'd say 'Yes, I have the right to intoxicate myself, as long as this does no harm to others, directly or indirectly.'

This would lead to a more shades-of-gray discussion than a black&white one, I think. Because in a sense, on a societal level, me destroying myself with intoxication wouldn't happen in a vacuum; it would mean others would do it as well, and/or that some people around me would suffer emotional or even physical consequences, and this would lead to societal problems and expenses - indirect and sometimes direct harm to others (and yes - I'm aware this would the also apply to other things, like an unhealthy lifestyle, but that's another discussion think).

But to put a bit of a black&white spin on it; it's not right that someone dies or gets hurt because some douche decided to get hammered or drugged out of his mind, and then stabs an innocent bystander, or slams into them with his car.

ughaibu wrote:

THWOTH wrote:Do we have a right to intoxicate ourselves?
Should we have a right to intoxicate ourselves?

You'll need to make your notion of "right" precise.

I'm asking others what they think. What's your notion of rights and how does it impact on the questions above?

John P. M. wrote:[...] But to put a bit of a black&white spin on it; it's not right that someone dies or gets hurt because some douche decided to get hammered or drugged out of his mind, and then stabs an innocent bystander, or slams into them with his car.

I presume that you would also hold that it is not OK for people to be stabbed or run down full stop. So is it OK for us to get hammered or drugged out of our minds as long as we don't stab, mow down, or otherwise cause harm to others while intoxicated?

THWOTH wrote:Do we have a right to intoxicate ourselves?

To me, the most useful definition of a right is as a legal right. In my jurisdiction, the answer is plainly yes. However, I suspect you have some other definition of a right in mind or you wouldn't be asking the question. Without that definition, any direct answer would fail to communicate.

Should we have a right to intoxicate ourselves?

"Should" questions are normative ethical questions and have the same problem as rights questions: without a common definition of the nature of shoulds (or oughts, or good acts), meaningful discussion is not possible. Defining this idea (these terms) is the field of meta-ethics. The answer to your question likely hinges on ones meta-ethical stance.

So, as is often the case in the Philosophy section, I've dissolved the question and that's probably unsatisfying for you. Me too really. But I hope you won't mind me taking the occasion of your thread to vent my frustration with the typical "Is X good", "Do we have a right to Y" type questions found on discussion boards. They go nowhere because the participants usually don't have the same definitions, if they have any at all.

THWOTH wrote:
I presume that you would also hold that it is not OK for people to be stabbed or run down full stop. So is it OK for us to get hammered or drugged out of our minds as long as we don't stab, mow down, or otherwise cause harm to others while intoxicated?

When we get hammered or drugged out of our minds, we no longer have full control of ourselves and our impulses or even sometimes our perceptions, so it's hard to guarantee that nothing of the sort would happen in that state. That's one problem of drugs and alcohol (in excess, depending on the substance); we lose control. The other is health issues.

THWOTH wrote:

ughaibu wrote:

THWOTH wrote:Do we have a right to intoxicate ourselves?
Should we have a right to intoxicate ourselves?

You'll need to make your notion of "right" precise.

I'm asking others what they think. What's your notion of rights and how does it impact on the questions above?

Yep, this is how these threads typically go. When pressed for definitions of fundamental concepts the thread goes from "Is there a right to X" to "I'm just surveying others definition of what a right is." If that's the case why didn't you just start out that way? Why promote the distractions that inevitably arise from specific examples?

the PC apeman wrote:

THWOTH wrote:Do we have a right to intoxicate ourselves?

To me, the most useful definition of a right is as a legal right. In my jurisdiction, the answer is plainly yes. However, I suspect you have some other definition of a right in mind or you wouldn't be asking the question. Without that definition, any direct answer would fail to communicate.

I accept that a right in law is a legally sanctioned freedom to (or from) X. However laws change. Employers used to have a right to employ children in heavy industry and now they don't (hopefully) after a moral case was made and the law amended. I accept that we have a right in law to intoxicate ourselves in some jurisdictions but do we limit the notion of 'a right' only to what is legally sanctioned?

the PC apeman wrote:

THWOTH wrote:Should we have a right to intoxicate ourselves?

"Should" questions are normative ethical questions and have the same problem as rights questions: without a common definition of the nature of shoulds (or oughts, or good acts), meaningful discussion is not possible. Defining this idea (these terms) is the field of meta-ethics. The answer to your question likely hinges on ones meta-ethical stance.

And so, do you think we should have a right (a legally sanctioned freedom, or a moral claim) to intoxicate ourselves in light of your meta-ethical stance?

the PC apeman wrote:So, as is often the case in the Philosophy section, I've dissolved the question and that's probably unsatisfying for you. Me too really. But I hope you won't mind me taking the occasion of your thread to vent my frustration with the typical "Is X good", "Do we have a right to Y" type questions found on discussion boards. They go nowhere because the participants usually don't have the same definitions, if they have any at all.

You haven't dissolved the question, you just claimed an opt-out!

John P. M. wrote:

THWOTH wrote:
I presume that you would also hold that it is not OK for people to be stabbed or run down full stop. So is it OK for us to get hammered or drugged out of our minds as long as we don't stab, mow down, or otherwise cause harm to others while intoxicated?

When we get hammered or drugged out of our minds, we no longer have full control of ourselves and our impulses or even sometimes our perceptions, so it's hard to guarantee that nothing of the sort would happen in that state. That's one problem of drugs and alcohol (in excess, depending on the substance); we lose control. The other is health issues.

If we lose control while hammered or drugged out of our minds are we responsible for our actions and the consequences thereof?

the PC apeman wrote:

THWOTH wrote:

ughaibu wrote:You'll need to make your notion of "right" precise.

I'm asking others what they think. What's your notion of rights and how does it impact on the questions above?

Yep, this is how these threads typically go. When pressed for definitions of fundamental concepts the thread goes from "Is there a right to X" to "I'm just surveying others definition of what a right is." If that's the case why didn't you just start out that way? Why promote the distractions that inevitably arise from specific examples?

Erm, I asked three questions to get a discussion going.
X = intoxicating compounds.

THWOTH wrote:I asked three questions to get a discussion going.

There are fora for such discussions. Philosophy doesn't mean "random chat".

THWOTH wrote:

John P. M. wrote:

THWOTH wrote:
I presume that you would also hold that it is not OK for people to be stabbed or run down full stop. So is it OK for us to get hammered or drugged out of our minds as long as we don't stab, mow down, or otherwise cause harm to others while intoxicated?

When we get hammered or drugged out of our minds, we no longer have full control of ourselves and our impulses or even sometimes our perceptions, so it's hard to guarantee that nothing of the sort would happen in that state. That's one problem of drugs and alcohol (in excess, depending on the substance); we lose control. The other is health issues.

If we lose control while hammered or drugged out of our minds are we responsible for our actions and the consequences thereof?

In the legal sense, yes when it comes to 'voluntary intoxication', and I suppose there's a reason for that. We at some point chose to become intoxicated, most of us know our limits, we knew the possible ramifications, we knew it would diminish our inhibitions and perhaps lead to an altered view of reality. In a sober state, a person may be against drunk driving, but when drunk, the same person thinks he/she's in full control or that driving a car wouldn't pose a problem.

We can't have a justice system where a person can plan a murder, then deliberately down half a bottle of Jack or shoot up heroin, then kill the other person, and then use an 'intoxication defense' in court.

But I didn't notice this was posted in the Philosophy section until now - I thought it had a strange vibe...

Depends, I guess. "Intoxication" is a pretty broad term.

THWOTH wrote:Hi crank,

Is a right more than a legally sanctioned freedom?

Why should we have a right to intoxicate ourselves beyond or above what the law decides?

What if what we choose to put in ourselves is a harm to us or to others?

Rights, at their most fundamental, begin with the person.
The state should have to stop at the boundary of the person.
However, although we should have the right to harm ourselves, there should be some protection for others from us.

A right? No. A duty? Certainly!

THWOTH wrote:

the PC apeman wrote:To me, the most useful definition of a right is as a legal right. In my jurisdiction, the answer is plainly yes. However, I suspect you have some other definition of a right in mind or you wouldn't be asking the question. Without that definition, any direct answer would fail to communicate.

I accept that a right in law is a legally sanctioned freedom to (or from) X. However laws change.

Yes they do. And when they do rights, as I understand them, change. Are you thinking there's such a thing as an eternal or objective right?

I accept that we have a right in law to intoxicate ourselves in some jurisdictions but do we limit the notion of 'a right' only to what is legally sanctioned?

Yes, that is how I would use the term.

And so, do you think we should have a right (a legally sanctioned freedom, or a moral claim) to intoxicate ourselves in light of your meta-ethical stance?

Yes. In other words, I do not want the law to prohibit intoxicating ourselves. Is this a poll?

You haven't dissolved the question, you just claimed an opt-out!

Dissolving the question is an opt-out.