Ethics of Alcohol consumption

[Volenta]

It's just harmful to [...] others (even a vegan alcoholic beverage).

In what sense do you mean it's harmful for others? You mean people that get aggressive from consuming alcohol? Or by contributing to social pressure to also drink, and thereby harming their health?

[brimstoneSalad]

In what sense do you mean it's harmful for others? You mean people that get aggressive from consuming alcohol?

People get aggressive, sure, many murders are committed while people are drunk, as well as unwanted pregnancies, but they also get behind the wheels of automobiles and kill people.

Or by contributing to social pressure to also drink, and thereby harming their health?

More contributing social pressure for others to drink, resulting in the increased incidence of the above dangers. But harming health too, sure.

[noelle]

In what sense do you mean it's harmful for others? You mean people that get aggressive from consuming alcohol?

People get aggressive, sure, many murders are committed while people are drunk, as well as unwanted pregnancies, but they also get behind the wheels of automobiles and kill people.

Or by contributing to social pressure to also drink, and thereby harming their health?

More contributing social pressure for others to drink, resulting in the increased incidence of the above dangers. But harming health too, sure.

Well, what is wrong with practicing discipline? Personal accountability is a virtue, and holding peers accountable for your actions is misguided.

Abstaining from sex or alcohol doesn't teach you discipline. Letting yourself enjoy some carnal sins every once in awhile is a great exercise in moderation. Drinking alcohol is not inherently violent or dangerous, but the mindset that you are a slave to your desires is certainly very dangerous.

[Volenta]

People get aggressive, sure, many murders are committed while people are drunk, as well as unwanted pregnancies, but they also get behind the wheels of automobiles and kill people.

Sure, but I think most of us know very well that we should always drink in moderation. Especially if you know from yourself to get aggressive. And to not drink at all when you're going behind the wheels. That's basic information everybody should be aware of, and therefore is regularly taught at schools and things like that.

But I'm also aware that the problems you're mentioning are very real and many people aren't able to avoid these dangers, but that's not a reason for me to think that one should per definition fully abstain from alcohol when it can be done in moderation and in a safe manner (you have to know your own limits of course).

While repyling noelle replied as well. I agree with that post.

[brimstoneSalad]

Sure, but I think most of us know very well that we should always drink in moderation.

There's no good reason you should drink at all. I think you know that, so if there's anything wrong with it at all, that's a very good reason NOT to do it.

but that's not a reason for me to think that one should per definition fully abstain from alcohol when it can be done in moderation and in a safe manner (you have to know your own limits of course).

Here's the thing, it doesn't matter how responsible you are. Not everybody is. And alcohol (if you're not using it to self-medicate depression- which is very counter-productive) is primarily a substance of social currency, so your actions are inextricably linked to those of others.

You drink because other people around are drinking, and your drinking encourages others to drink. People don't do much drinking alone (and most people who do, shouldn't).


There are very few legitimate uses of alcohol for self-medication and productivity. Most usages are to loosen social inhibitions, and lubricate social interaction, and in those situations you're participating in and perpetuating the practice which is socially harmful and kills...

Well, in the U.S. it seems to be around 10,000 people a year. Roughly a third of automobile deaths.
http://responsibility.org/drunk-driving ... statistics

That site seems happy to congratulate themselves on the reductions, but despite enormous expenditure on advertising and law enforcement, the numbers really haven't gone down that much. Why? Because drunk people are idiots. Particularly while they're drunk.

Advertising and punishment doesn't help much when the core of the problem is impaired judgement.

It's an institution of unnecessary death and suffering (automobile accidents alone, let's ignore the alcohol fueled rape epidemic for now), that I'm not interested in supporting.

Most drug use works the same way. They inhibit judgement and decision making, and they spread pathologically through social exposure and pressure.


You really only have to ask yourself one thing: Is the institution of alcohol use something that's good for the world, and is it something you want to support? If you think it is, then drinking is the right thing to do. If not, then it isn't.

[brimstoneSalad]

Well, what is wrong with practicing discipline?

Because it's naive and idiotic. Drinking impairs the judgement you need to practice self discipline, and doing stupid things in moderation isn't a useful way to build discipline unless you have an abnormal problem you need to overcome (there is some argument for an alcoholic learning to deal with a sip of alcohol, but that doesn't apply to anybody here).

Clearly you take your life lessons from South Park, but are happy to remain ignorant to the actual social effects of alcohol, which are what is at issue.

There was a reason the temperance movement got so much political support, and it wasn't just religion. Alcohol is a social evil; the problem was, criminalizing it caused more bad than regulating it.

Personal accountability is a virtue, and holding peers accountable for your actions is misguided.

I'm not talking about holding your peers responsible for your actions, I'm talking about holding yourself responsible for the actions of your peers which you have influenced.

Drinking is a social activity. Drinking encourages others to drink more, and supports an entire institution.

You like personal accountability? How about taking some.

Don't drink in public. Don't drink around friends or encourage them to drink.

Abstaining from sex or alcohol doesn't teach you discipline. Letting yourself enjoy some carnal sins every once in awhile is a great exercise in moderation.

That's moronic.

Either something is harmful to others, in which case we shouldn't do it, or find a way to avoid causing that harm, or it's harmless in which case it's not a 'sin'.

You can't justify harm to others by encouraging people to engage in it 'in moderation'. What's wrong to do a lot of is wrong to do a little of. Harming others is wrong. Harming others more is just more wrong.

With that mindset, you might as well encourage people to eat a little meat, and rape just a little bit. To better practice self control, of course.

Thanks Rasputin, but I can control myself perfectly well without indulging in immoral behavior under the mistaken notion that I need to experience something in order to be tempted by it and overcome it (whether through Jesus, or the power of Southpark).

You want to work on mastering your will power? Then apply it to something worthwhile. Apply that will and self control to overcome distraction and human laziness, and obtain motivation to do good in the world, rather than pulling out of evil before you climax and congratulating yourself on false accomplishments.

Drinking alcohol is not inherently violent or dangerous,

The social institution is, and that's what you're supporting.

but the mindset that you are a slave to your desires is certainly very dangerous.

As I said, that has nothing whatsoever to do with this discussion. An alcoholic probably should learn to be around alcohol and take a sip without going on a bender. That's not a normal situation, and it doesn't apply (as far as I know) to anybody here.

[noelle]

It's hard to carry a discussion with you because you resort to ad hominem and generally exhibit toxic behaviors. I don't agree with most of what you said, so I don't know how else I can contribute to the conversation anymore.

[brimstoneSalad]

It's hard to carry a discussion with you because you resort to ad hominem and generally exhibit toxic behaviors. I don't agree with most of what you said, so I don't know how else I can contribute to the conversation anymore.

I debunked all of your points with reasoned argument.

Ad hominem is attacking your credibility, and concluding that your arguments are false. I called the ideas you are promoting idiotic, because they are. And I explained why.

If you have no counter-argument, because you are wrong, that's fine.

You've confirmed my suspicion that you're closed-minded and more interested in rationalizing than being rational, though...

You want to drink, just as a carnist wants to eat meat, so you'll come up with any excuse you feels justifies it. There is no reason in your arguments.

The best argument for drinking is that the institution of alcohol use kills a relatively small number of people, maybe a few hundred thousand a year, and that that death toll per capita of enjoyment is worth it from a utilitarian perspective. E.g. the fun > suffering. Of course, many people attempt to make the same argument about meat. Does the fun and enjoyment of one justify the suffering of another? And how to you weigh that?

[Volenta]

There's no good reason you should drink at all. I think you know that, so if there's anything wrong with it at all, that's a very good reason NOT to do it.

Other than just enjoyment and possibly more intimacy among people, no.



It reminds me of the discussion we had here: http://theveganatheist.com/forum/viewto ... ?f=7&t=488
We again have a disagreement on whether to we should support something that in practice could very well function in a way that is harmful, but isn't per definition harmful and can be done in a non-harmful way. And I'm again more interested in the latter one. And in this case (and that of other types of drugs) I'm particularly interested in individual freedom and responsibility that shouldn't be at risk out of the collective safety because some people don't take their individual responsibility.

I think that neolle actually made a very good point that some things can be abused if someone is not careful enough. Maybe sex wasn't a good example; maybe the usage of fireworks is a better one.

[noelle]

There's no good reason you should drink at all. I think you know that, so if there's anything wrong with it at all, that's a very good reason NOT to do it.

Other than just enjoyment and possibly more intimacy among people, no.



It reminds me of the discussion we had here: http://theveganatheist.com/forum/viewto ... ?f=7&t=488
We again have a disagreement on whether to we should support something that in practice could very well function in a way that is harmful, but isn't per definition harmful and can be done in a non-harmful way. And I'm again more interested in the latter one. And in this case (and that of other types of drugs) I'm particularly interested in individual freedom and responsibility that shouldn't be at risk out of the collective safety because some people don't take their individual responsibility.

I think that neolle actually made a very good point that some things can be abused if someone is not careful enough. Maybe sex wasn't a good example; maybe the usage of fireworks is a better one.

I merely used sex as an example because I was thinking of simplistic pleasures. It wasn't a good addiction example, though.

I agree with your points. I believe the assertion that even moderate alcohol consumption is harmful to people around you is ridiculous.