![Cultish delusions [1213x1351 - 182KB]](https://pic8.co/sh/qHDfBL.jpg){kind=link}
So if I ask about opium, you'll contrive a reason why that's wrong. But if I ask about enjoying an apple, you'll contrive a reason why that's okay. So then if I try to blend the apple and opium examples, you'll say cut down the evil tree rather than fix it with science.
The pleasure of opium is out-balanced by the damage to the body, mind, and spirit of the user, as well as the damage to their relations with others - as any ex-opium addict will readily confess.
The of the apple is not itself outbalanced by any privation of a greater good; however, like with all goods, the virtue of temperance must be exercised. A deficiency of apples (or like foods) may lead to scurvy; an excess may cause other health issues like diabetes or low pH levels or sensitive teeth. But in itself the good of eating an apple balances well with other goods.
I wanted to say something similar.
The pleasure derived from the apple seems to strike some kind of balance which is not only commensurate with the good of the apple (therefore not a tremendous ecstatic experience), but it also TIES the pleasure to something which increases the overall good of the consumer, i.e. it keeps the body flourishing. The pleasure is not the sole end.
The good of opium can only be construed in two ways:
- Escape from existing pain.
It is either the case that this is pain which opium is being used to medicate, as in the case of treatment. Or, a person is numbing a non-disabling pain as a means of psychological escape.
- Pursuit of super-physiological levels of pleasure.
In the first case, there is only one clearly good use of opium.
In the second, the pleasure is pursued as its own end and, by way of minimizing and desensitizing the pleasure experience of all other goods, it will decrease the overall good of the consumer across time.
In the second, the pleasure is pursued as its own end and, by way of minimizing and desensitizing the pleasure experience of all other goods, it will decrease the overall good of the consumer across time.
This, I think, must be a posteriori.
The negative correlates of opium, Y, are not necessarily associated with X.
I think has since made an argument to the contrary.
And even if not, I think we could classify opiate usage (at least recreationally) as immoral on the grounds of their highly addictive nature. Drunkenness is a mortal sin because of the diminishing effect it has on the best parts of our nature, our intellect and free will. I think a similar effect is elicited by those who, through the "desensitization to the level of X" as has described, come to long desperately for more Y, such that their will ceases in a sense to be as free. This consequence, which many would argue is itself necessary, would be sufficient to classify the recreational (uncontrolled) usage of the drug as immoral.
A prescription of pain-killers would be different because those negative effects, and the addiction, are controlled by the prescription, as long as this is followed. Recreational use has no inherent controls such as this.
I think this is relevant.
(post is archived)