Confused messages
I just love how some politicians use moral relativism when arguing against moral relativism.
The case in point: drugs in Australia wrt 'harm minimisation'.
The politician's argument: Harm minimisation sends a confused message to the community.
In my experience, drug-taking is, in part, justified by this wonderful argument: "well, I want to do it, I'm not forcing my beliefs on you and you can't judge me because you're not me."
On the other hand, politicians are often heard responding to harm minimisation advocates like this: "they are entitled to their own opinion" and of course going on to boast about the wonders of free speech.
The point is, this sends the truly confused message of partial relativism without identifying clear boundaries. I would argue that poor and unjustified ideas are, on the whole, more dangerous than recreational drug use per se. I think that if moral relativism was removed as a justification, then we might actually see a reduction in drug usage. (Of course, people will always find excuses to get high, but it's just harder to do it with a moral framework in tact when you are forced to accept direct judgment...)
Besides, the argument that harm minimisation sends a confused message relies on the assumption that users are idiots. I didn't observe this trend at all, especially among the 'rec' users.
In fact, politically, the real issue is that the voting public is adverse to the approach of harm minimisation. This has some parallels with rehabilitation of convicts in the criminal justice system. What politician is going to try to broaden the horizons of ex-cons? Even though I would imagine the public would end up benefiting more from this approach rather than the more popular tabloid newspaper approach.
Like this example, zero-tolerance is a cosmetic, impractical, mostly ideological response. On the other hand, there are plenty of examples where we don't condone a person's activities but seek to minimise harm to all involved. Domestic violence counseling springs to mind. How retarded is it to argue that because counseling exists, we send confused messages about domestic violence?
Yes, there is a heavy political price to pay for supporting harm minimisation, but it only makes things worse when politicians insist on invoking relativism of ideas while rejecting relativism of action.
The case in point: drugs in Australia wrt 'harm minimisation'.
The politician's argument: Harm minimisation sends a confused message to the community.
In my experience, drug-taking is, in part, justified by this wonderful argument: "well, I want to do it, I'm not forcing my beliefs on you and you can't judge me because you're not me."
On the other hand, politicians are often heard responding to harm minimisation advocates like this: "they are entitled to their own opinion" and of course going on to boast about the wonders of free speech.
The point is, this sends the truly confused message of partial relativism without identifying clear boundaries. I would argue that poor and unjustified ideas are, on the whole, more dangerous than recreational drug use per se. I think that if moral relativism was removed as a justification, then we might actually see a reduction in drug usage. (Of course, people will always find excuses to get high, but it's just harder to do it with a moral framework in tact when you are forced to accept direct judgment...)
Besides, the argument that harm minimisation sends a confused message relies on the assumption that users are idiots. I didn't observe this trend at all, especially among the 'rec' users.
In fact, politically, the real issue is that the voting public is adverse to the approach of harm minimisation. This has some parallels with rehabilitation of convicts in the criminal justice system. What politician is going to try to broaden the horizons of ex-cons? Even though I would imagine the public would end up benefiting more from this approach rather than the more popular tabloid newspaper approach.
Like this example, zero-tolerance is a cosmetic, impractical, mostly ideological response. On the other hand, there are plenty of examples where we don't condone a person's activities but seek to minimise harm to all involved. Domestic violence counseling springs to mind. How retarded is it to argue that because counseling exists, we send confused messages about domestic violence?
Yes, there is a heavy political price to pay for supporting harm minimisation, but it only makes things worse when politicians insist on invoking relativism of ideas while rejecting relativism of action.
posted by DJ Catastrophe at
12:34 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home