*stands up* Hi, my name is Tim, and I am teetotal.

[WildBerry]

Re: *stands up* Hi, my name is Tim, and I am teetotal.

My question is why you think drinking alcohol is a moral decision at all (Mormon?). I myself am a believer in moral "absolutes," if you will, but let's not get into the details on that here. I don't see anything morally wrong with drinking, but I don't do it often at all, and when I do, I never get drunk (ie. only a glass on the few occasions I do drink), and I enjoy the drink.

...

Thirdly, I was never fond of impairing my ability to function or otherwise be alert and aware of my surroundings.

Isn't that a moral choice you're making? Realising you might not be predictable / likeable / acceptable / responsible / safe for the enviroment, you opt out drinking excessively? Even if you have not considered such realm for drinking, why cannot a person rightly make his choices on drinking based on such moral takes?

Of course, all things considered, the OP is probably wasted right now. And has been for the last four years, which is why he hasn't posted since.

No, he was so wasted he had to make a new account because the liver of the first failed. Cirrosis is nasty.

 

[lAmebAdger]

Re: *stands up* Hi, my name is Tim, and I am teetotal.

well, if you look at all the **** that goes on because people get addicted to alcohol, you start to question alcohol consumption morally...

i myself have nothing against it, if you know you can control it

 

[Module88]

Re: *stands up* Hi, my name is Tim, and I am teetotal.

Isn't that a moral choice you're making? Realising you might not be predictable / likeable / acceptable / responsible / safe for the enviroment, you opt out drinking excessively? Even if you have not considered such realm for drinking, why cannot a person rightly make his choices on drinking based on such moral takes?

As far as I'm concerned, no. It's no more a moral choice than choosing not to drink and drive is a moral choice AFAIC. Drinking and driving is a dumb idea, which is why I choose not to do it. Not because I have some moral objection to it, but because, well, it's a dumb idea (the reasons should be obvious). And I try not to do dumb things, because I know that stupid hurts (at the same time, I'm no hedonist).

Sure, I suppose you could argue in several ways that that really is a moral choice. But to me there's a difference between being dumb and being immoral, especially when we're talking about labels.

 

[WildBerry]

Re: *stands up* Hi, my name is Tim, and I am teetotal.

As far as I'm concerned, no. It's no more a moral choice than choosing not to drink and drive is a moral choice AFAIC. Drinking and driving is a dumb idea, which is why I choose not to do it. Not because I have some moral objection to it, but because, well, it's a dumb idea (the reasons should be obvious). And I try not to do dumb things, because I know that stupid hurts (at the same time, I'm no hedonist).

Sure, I suppose you could argue in several ways that that really is a moral choice. But to me there's a difference between being dumb and being immoral, especially when we're talking about labels.

So since my question was also "is it not possible for one to make that decision on moral grounds", and your answer was no, is it then that anyone claiming to do so is in your eyes just confused about morals? Or did decide to concentrate on answering for yourself firsthand?

I'm asking because you, again, decided to mention your take on moral absolutes, and I've derived before from discussions with you before that these absolutes, as far as you are concerned, are neither personal or relative for you.

Another question: is not hurting other people simply a smart move and as an action amoral in general?

 

[Module88]

Re: *stands up* Hi, my name is Tim, and I am teetotal.

So since my question was also "is it not possible for one to make that decision on moral grounds", and your answer was no, is it then that anyone claiming to do so is in your eyes just confused about morals? Or did decide to concentrate on answering for yourself firsthand?

Sorry, I was only answering the question addressed to me, which was, "Isn't that a moral choice you're making?" So, no, I do not consider the choice I am making to be a moral one. It might be a moral choice in someone else's case, however (I did bring up Mormons for a reason). Sorry for the confusion.

I'm asking because you, again, decided to mention your take on moral absolutes, and I've derived before from discussions with you before that these absolutes, as far as you are concerned, are neither personal or relative for you.

Well they are personal for me, I suppose. Not everyone has the same morals, right? And while I consider morals "absolute," there is a degree of relativity in terms of ranking. Which ones take precedent over which, so on. It's the only way to resolve conflict with the least amount of arbitrariness, if you will.

Another question: is not hurting other people simply a smart move and as an action amoral in general?

By other people, you mean me. :unimpressed: While I certainly don't intend on killing anyone without a damn good reason, the primary reason I don't drink and drive is because I don't want to get me killed. Not to mention the costs of fixing the car and the hospital bills if I do make it out alive. It's just dumb. Why would I do that to myself? The fact that others could also be hurt is a consideration, but is really just icing on the cake.

 

[lAmebAdger]

Re: *stands up* Hi, my name is Tim, and I am teetotal.

can't we just consider avoiding a dumb mistake to be moral if the dumbness may have negative impact on the environment?

 

[Dondrei]

Re: *stands up* Hi, my name is Tim, and I am teetotal.

I can't imagine why Mod would want to be keenly aware of his surroundings.

Oh right, in case zombies are sneaking up on him.

 

[WildBerry]

Re: *stands up* Hi, my name is Tim, and I am teetotal.

Sorry, I was only answering the question addressed to me, which was, "Isn't that a moral choice you're making?" So, no, I do not consider the choice I am making to be a moral one. It might be a moral choice in someone else's case, however (I did bring up Mormons for a reason). Sorry for the confusion.

No problem, I'm happy with your answer thus far.

Well they are personal for me, I suppose. Not everyone has the same morals, right? And while I consider morals "absolute," there is a degree of relativity in terms of ranking. Which ones take precedent over which, so on. It's the only way to resolve conflict with the least amount of arbitrariness, if you will.

It's just you have often said that what is wrong for you should be wrong for any intelligent person. But we'll skip over that, I'm pleased if you're willing to restrict that notion to certain topics.

By other people, you mean me. :unimpressed: While I certainly don't intend on killing anyone without a damn good reason, the primary reason I don't drink and drive is because I don't want to get me killed. Not to mention the costs of fixing the car and the hospital bills if I do make it out alive. It's just dumb. Why would I do that to myself? The fact that others could also be hurt is a consideration, but is really just icing on the cake.

...no, by other people I mean other people. You're too focused on the more obvious self-destructive drinking habit, drinking and driving. You can be harmful to yourself - and others - without going behind the wheel. I know this is a huge leap, but assume for a moment you are a body-builder with aggressive tendencies and a bad head for liquor. Drinking, you would have a chance to get an uncontrollably violent streak. You'd be buff enough to beat anyone to pulp, even with a little coordination problems due to being tipsy. It wouldn't probably be dangerous for yourself to drink - you could take on anyone, heck, you could take five anyones. But the problem is, every other night you'd go out and party some guy would have a broken arm.

Again, I know this doesn't currently apply to you, and thus does not enter your moral considerations. But should the scenario become truth, would you start drinking because there would probably be no real danger to you from it (if you want to, we could throw in a little diplomatic immunity if you're concerned about getting sued, although I'm not sure anyone would dare since we've assumed you're big and bad), would you stop it because it was moral, or do you take the road KillerAim has pointed out - that not killing and not mugging people is not a moral choice but a strictly logical one? The KA option has the interesting implication that mugging or killing someone cannot be an immoral action if it is strictly a matter of logic, but that's a whole another discussion.

 

[Damascus]

Re: *stands up* Hi, my name is Tim, and I am teetotal.

Meh, I don't drink either. In my opinion there's no reason to, even if I'm the only person left who doesn't :scared:

Kinda funny though, considering I'm :xirish: which for some reason bothers people.

5+ years later, still no!

Why is this thread still active? onder:

 

[WildBerry]

Re: *stands up* Hi, my name is Tim, and I am teetotal.

Why is this thread still active? onder:

Poll necro. The polls are broken, and pressing a radio button and posting to another might dig up something long gone.

 

[Module88]

Re: *stands up* Hi, my name is Tim, and I am teetotal.

It's just you have often said that what is wrong for you should be wrong for any intelligent person. But we'll skip over that, I'm pleased if you're willing to restrict that notion to certain topics.

Citation on this one, please. I might have said I believe in an objective truth to a significant extent, but I find it incredibly difficult to believe that I, “often said what’s wrong for me should be wrong for any intelligent person,†if only because of the fact that I also make mistakes, which would mean that I might not always be right about what is right. Now that’s not the only reason, but that alone makes your claim seem rather far-fetched to me.

...no, by other people I mean other people. You're too focused on the more obvious self-destructive drinking habit, drinking and driving. You can be harmful to yourself - and others - without going behind the wheel. I know this is a huge leap, but assume for a moment you are a body-builder with aggressive tendencies and a bad head for liquor. Drinking, you would have a chance to get an uncontrollably violent streak. You'd be buff enough to beat anyone to pulp, even with a little coordination problems due to being tipsy. It wouldn't probably be dangerous for yourself to drink - you could take on anyone, heck, you could take five anyones. But the problem is, every other night you'd go out and party some guy would have a broken arm.

Again, I know this doesn't currently apply to you, and thus does not enter your moral considerations. But should the scenario become truth, would you start drinking because there would probably be no real danger to you from it (if you want to, we could throw in a little diplomatic immunity if you're concerned about getting sued, although I'm not sure anyone would dare since we've assumed you're big and bad), would you stop it because it was moral, or do you take the road KillerAim has pointed out - that not killing and not mugging people is not a moral choice but a strictly logical one? The KA option has the interesting implication that mugging or killing someone cannot be an immoral action if it is strictly a matter of logic, but that's a whole another discussion.

I was serious about that first sentence. Let’s suppose I were who you proposed I am. Let’s suppose (and we’re stretching it) I never suffered any physical, legal, or financial repercussions for drinking and anything I did while drunk. Would I still drink, and why? Before we get into things, I wasn’t limiting my statement- you certainly CAN harm people in other ways when you’re drunk. Killing someone via vehicle is not the only way. Just so we’re clear on that.


To answer the question, unless your goal is to get drunk, getting drunk impairs your ability to pretty much achieve any other end you could think of compared to being sober (minus what, getting drunk, maybe drunken sex where you might not remember anything at all, and so on). In other words, unless these few things are what you’re after, being drunk isn’t going to help you do anything you want to do well, compared to being sober. So even then, it doesn’t make sense to get drunk except under limited circumstances.

Now, if one of these outlying goals, if you will, is what you’re after, by all means, it makes sense get drunk. Because in these few circumstances, being drunk will help you achieve your goal. But other than that, it doesn’t make any sense to get drunk. It’s only useful for achieving a few ends and largely impairs your ability to achieve almost any other end. And in the real world, there ARE repercussions to drunken behavior, and they may very well be physical, legal, financial, etc, or any combination thereof.

So, in reality, even IF you’re getting drunk to achieve one of the few ends that getting drunk actually helps you achieve, you can still potentially face significant repercussions, and that risk is something you have to consider for yourself. Sure, getting drunk with a girl might help you get laid and have a fantastic night you might or might not remember, but there are potential repercussions to this. Do the risks outweigh the benefits? That’s something you have to decide for yourself.


End of the day, I still wouldn’t get drunk unless I was after one of those few goals and I couldn’t possibly suffer any repercussions. But I’m not, and in the real world, there are repercussions. So I choose not to get drunk. Makes sense I hope?

 

[WildBerry]

Re: *stands up* Hi, my name is Tim, and I am teetotal.

Citation on this one, please. I might have said I believe in an objective truth to a significant extent, but I find it incredibly difficult to believe that I, “often said what’s wrong for me should be wrong for any intelligent person,†if only because of the fact that I also make mistakes, which would mean that I might not always be right about what is right. Now that’s not the only reason, but that alone makes your claim seem rather far-fetched to me.

The discussion I referred to was discussion of rights to property and life, which you, like many others, deduced rationally. Therefore, they would be the same for any rational agent. I do not feel like digging through the myriad of threads in which this has been discussed, but I'm pretty sure that was your sentiment.

I was serious about that first sentence. Let’s suppose I were who you proposed I am. Let’s suppose (and we’re stretching it) I never suffered any physical, legal, or financial repercussions for drinking and anything I did while drunk. Would I still drink, and why? Before we get into things, I wasn’t limiting my statement- you certainly CAN harm people in other ways when you’re drunk. Killing someone via vehicle is not the only way. Just so we’re clear on that.

...

End of the day, I still wouldn’t get drunk unless I was after one of those few goals and I couldn’t possibly suffer any repercussions. But I’m not, and in the real world, there are repercussions. So I choose not to get drunk. Makes sense I hope?

If I read you right, you appeal to the fact that outside an imaginary case there always are consequences to drinking (not all recognise this thing I, too, deem a fact), and thus it remains a case you personally let logic and risk-analysis dictate without moral ponderings ever entering the scene, because the risk analysis just seems too dire to continue thinking if you should drink?

That is a sensible position, I guess. You missed the essence of the question, though - would you drink if it brought no harm (even the transferred sort) to you, while bringing harm to others?

I strongly disagree on your notion of drinking, though - the main reason for people to drink is to let some of the inhibitions and seriousness drop, and many a person indeed feels the feelings of joy intensely more with a bit of a buzz. While you said you are no hedonist, for many people pleasure is still a worthy goal, even if it isn't the end-all goal.

 

[Module88]

Re: *stands up* Hi, my name is Tim, and I am teetotal.

The discussion I referred to was discussion of rights to property and life, which you, like many others, deduced rationally. Therefore, they would be the same for any rational agent. I do not feel like digging through the myriad of threads in which this has been discussed, but I'm pretty sure that was your sentiment.

Well, WB, I'm damn sure my sentiment was never, "I'm never wrong." And furthermore, at some point you're going to have to get to the axioms and principles by which everything else is based. If these are different between people, then rationality and logic will lead to different conclusions. So, call me a skeptic of your claim until I see the pudding.

If I read you right, you appeal to the fact that outside an imaginary case there always are consequences to drinking (not all recognise this thing I, too, deem a fact), and thus it remains a case you personally let logic and risk-analysis dictate without moral ponderings ever entering the scene, because the risk analysis just seems too dire to continue thinking if you should drink?

I followed until that last part. Until then, yes.

That is a sensible position, I guess. You missed the essence of the question, though - would you drink if it brought no harm (even the transferred sort) to you, while bringing harm to others?

No, because impairing my own judgment, reason, and senses, would still be a dumb idea, even if I didn't harm myself in any other way. I mean at that point, I'd be asking, "is making myself stoopid (and alcohol isn't cheap, but that's just a side note we're ignoring here) a good idea?" What? No, that's a dumb idea. Why would I make myself stoopid?! That's stoopid.

See where this is going? Basically, put yourself in the hypothetical situation. Suppose there's a machine that can impair your judgment, reduce your senses, and affect your ability to reason and think properly. Suppose you didn't suffer any consequences to yourself for using this machine. Would you use this machine on yourself?


Now, if drinking alcohol is itself pleasurable, or making yourself stoopid is the goal, you might be able to logically say yes. But I don't even like the taste of most alcohol. And furthermore, I can drink the alcohol that is tasty to me such that I don't suffer the ill effects of excess alcohol. So what do I do? I drink the drinks I like, on occasion, in such a quantity that doesn't impair my ability to function. Seems reasonable, no?

I strongly disagree on your notion of drinking, though - the main reason for people to drink is to let some of the inhibitions and seriousness drop, and many a person indeed feels the feelings of joy intensely more with a bit of a buzz. While you said you are no hedonist, for many people pleasure is still a worthy goal, even if it isn't the end-all goal.

And in this case, drinking would help achieve that goal, so it makes sense to drink. Just keep in mind that there can be consequences to getting drunk.

Now, as far as your last sentence goes, sure, pleasure is, well, pleasurable. But AFAIC, if you HAVE to get drunk, or drink, to experience a lot of pleasure, something's up. There are other issues that probably merit concern, at that point.

And what notion of drinking of mine do you disagree with? I basically said, if it makes sense to get drunk, get drunk. If it doesn't, don't. I'm not a prohibitionist OR a drunkard, so I'm not clear what you disagree with, exactly.

 

[Yaboosh]

Re: *stands up* Hi, my name is Tim, and I am teetotal.

And furthermore, I can drink the alcohol that is tasty to me such that I don't suffer the ill effects of excess alcohol. So what do I do? I drink the drinks I like, on occasion, in such a quantity that doesn't impair my ability to function. Seems reasonable, no?

Holy crap, this is the best thing you have ever written! I agree with this 100%.

Also, I drink beer often (being a brewer, I sort of have to), but I don't drink it for the effects of alcohol. I don't really like the effects of alcohol. I do often succumb to the effects, but only because I enjoy the taste so much that I allow myself to do so, not for the effects themselves (and only in situations where I maintain safety for myself and those around me).

 

[WildBerry]

Re: *stands up* Hi, my name is Tim, and I am teetotal.

Well, WB, I'm damn sure my sentiment was never, "I'm never wrong." And furthermore, at some point you're going to have to get to the axioms and principles by which everything else is based. If these are different between people, then rationality and logic will lead to different conclusions. So, call me a skeptic of your claim until I see the pudding.

No, you didn't say you weren't wrong. You said that rights are logically derivable. The implied effect (one which you did not say, but strongly leaned to) is that provided the logic is not faulty, in deriving rights any person will respect at least a minimum set of rights. It was you and Dondrei discussing this last spring, maybe around a year ago? My search function only seems to work the last three months worth of threads, so if you feel like actually digging up the thread I meant you can do it. I can't so you're free to dismiss my comments if you're still expecting me to supply the exact post.

Of course you didn't say you're without failure, but the notion that you can usually derive multiple correct logical conclusions from same the set of premises sure didn't fit what you seemed to be saying back then.

I followed until that last part. Until then, yes.

The last part was meant to say that when you are done with your risk analysis, it seems to be showing you that drinking for intoxication is so hazardous that any moral ponderings on it are useless.

See where this is going? Basically, put yourself in the hypothetical situation. Suppose there's a machine that can impair your judgment, reduce your senses, and affect your ability to reason and think properly. Suppose you didn't suffer any consequences to yourself for using this machine. Would you use this machine on yourself?

Say that using that machine renders pleasure not known before upon the user? It's not that clear cut anymore.

Now, as far as your last sentence goes, sure, pleasure is, well, pleasurable. But AFAIC, if you HAVE to get drunk, or drink, to experience a lot of pleasure, something's up. There are other issues that probably merit concern, at that point.

This is applicable to any form of past-time or amusement. Surely I did not claim that alcohol was a requisite for fun?

And what notion of drinking of mine do you disagree with? I basically said, if it makes sense to get drunk, get drunk. If it doesn't, don't. I'm not a prohibitionist OR a drunkard, so I'm not clear what you disagree with, exactly.

You seemed to be belittling the circumstances under which it makes sense to get drunk. The social circumstances under which it is not only acceptable (as in being grey area, neither perfectly sensible in a must-do -way or recklessly insensible - the chance you seem to be missing) but also desirable for many are multiple.

Also, before your last post you had not much commented on the possibility of drinking for the sensual pleasures of the drinks, not the buzz. If I read you right, and your blanket statement about the sense-making drinking was intended more broad than I read it, I have no grave disagreements.

 

[MYK]

Re: *stands up* Hi, my name is Tim, and I am teetotal.

There was this really strange part of my life, at this gathering of friends.
Some of them wanted to drink.

And I said, "No thanks." But the next day, I did drink some.

I think the decision had to do with how I was feeling.



Or maybe I took the moral high-ground and then decided it wasn't right to do that before sampling both sides. Or maybe I was thirsty.

That may be entirely made up. The only fact I can provide is that I just drank a pint.

 

[Module88]

Re: *stands up* Hi, my name is Tim, and I am teetotal.

No, you didn't say you weren't wrong. You said that rights are logically derivable. The implied effect (one which you did not say, but strongly leaned to) is that provided the logic is not faulty, in deriving rights any person will respect at least a minimum set of rights.

Well, you have to start somewhere. If the premises are different, then you should get different conclusions (generally). Thus, it’s possible for someone to logically have no respect for rights at all.

It was you and Dondrei discussing this last spring, maybe around a year ago? My search function only seems to work the last three months worth of threads, so if you feel like actually digging up the thread I meant you can do it. I can't so you're free to dismiss my comments if you're still expecting me to supply the exact post.

Your statements were, “It's just you have often said that what is wrong for you should be wrong for any intelligent person… The discussion I referred to was discussion of rights to property and life, which you, like many others, deduced rationally. Therefore, they would be the same for any rational agent.” In other words, you’re claiming that I essentially said that everyone’s position should coincide with mine if his or her logic is good, and that mine is never faulty. How else could I have claimed that what’s wrong for me should be wrong for any intelligent person?

Furthermore, in order for that second statement to be true, everyone would have to have the same premises, and I’m quite sure that I never claimed that everyone believes the same things I do when it comes to those premises. So I can’t see myself making that claim, either.

Again, I’d want to see a citation for that. I find it virtually impossible to believe that I claimed that everyone has the same premises, principles, and axioms with respect to their beliefs and positions. I also find it virtually impossible, if not impossible, to believe that I said I was never wrong, and I must have said that, otherwise, it wouldn’t make sense to claim that, “what is wrong for me should be wrong for any intelligent person.” So, if you don’t plan on supplying the post, I will most definitely dismiss your claim, because I’m pretty damn sure I would never made the claims you’re accusing me of making.

Of course you didn't say you're without failure, but the notion that you can usually derive multiple correct logical conclusions from same the set of premises sure didn't fit what you seemed to be saying back then.

We’re not on the same page here. The relevant part you quoted from me was, “And furthermore, at some point you're going to have to get to the axioms and principles by which everything else is based. If these are different between people, then rationality and logic will lead to different conclusions.” Emphasis mine. So, I’m not really seeing where your statement above is coming from.


Now, once you’ve reached some sort of conclusion, you can get different ways to approach the same conclusion. Suppose we all concluded that gun control was stupid. We might all have different ideas from which to dismantle current gun control laws, even though in principle, we all agree that gun control is stupid. But reaching a conclusion from a set of defined premises should be pretty uniform if the logic is good.

The last part was meant to say that when you are done with your risk analysis, it seems to be showing you that drinking for intoxication is so hazardous that any moral ponderings on it are useless.

Well, I guess I kind of addressed this in my last post. Even if you take risk analysis out of it, it still ends up sounding like a dumb idea unless your goals involve impairing your own judgment or the like. Which, to me, also sounds like a dumb idea.

Say that using that machine renders pleasure not known before upon the user? It's not that clear cut anymore.

Sure. But what are you after? Is this pleasure one that can ONLY be achieved by this machine (or, the activity of getting drunk)? Are there other methods that might be better with respect to achieving this pleasure? Are there even higher pleasures to achieve? If the answer to the last two questions is yes, then you’ve significantly reduced the incentive to get drunk.

This is applicable to any form of past-time or amusement. Surely I did not claim that alcohol was a requisite for fun?

You did not. But in an interesting twist, this ties with what I said right above. If there are other, better, pleasures that don’t result in the impairment of those things I mentioned, why not strive for those? Why spend the money and time when there are higher or even equally pleasurable things that don’t affect your ability to function? At the end of the day, you still end up with something along the lines of, “it doesn’t make sense to get drunk.”

You seemed to be belittling the circumstances under which it makes sense to get drunk. The social circumstances under which it is not only acceptable (as in being grey area, neither perfectly sensible in a must-do -way or recklessly insensible - the chance you seem to be missing) but also desirable for many are multiple.

Well, there aren’t a whole lot of circumstances in which it makes sense to get drunk. Even if you’re playing beer pong or something, it’s better for you to win and not get drunk, and watch your FRIENDS get drunk because that’s much more entertaining than them getting a video of you acting like a retard and posting it on youtube or something. Plus, you end up winning, so you get bragging rights on top of that.

So even if you’re at some social interaction where it’s acceptable or expected for you to get drunk, it makes sense for you to win (and avoid drunkenness as much as possible) and enjoy the interesting things your friends do while drunk, rather than for you to get drunk and be the laughing stock of everyone else.

Now granted, it may turn out that no one remembers anything at all and no one’s the wiser at the end of the day because everyone is too wasted. But that’s really best-case scenario, and not exactly a good outcome in my book anyway. So you and everyone else had fun, but you all got so drunk that no one remembers what actually happened or why the party was fun. That sounds awesome! “Why was it awesome”? Doh...

 

[LostMagic]

Re: *stands up* Hi, my name is Tim, and I am teetotal.

Well, mostly everyone drinks in these ages, as do i. just dont drink to get drunk, or fit in. screw that. also dont become a self-hating prick..taht also isnt good