Abstract
Ethical and moral theories aim to evaluate and explain the complexities of one’s life. Decisions that individuals face on a daily basis, or once in a lifetime are affected by the morality behind the making of the decision as well as the repercussions that come as a result. Controversial decisions such as drug legalization must extend beyond financial and legal obligations and reach to moral theories for a much more vivid understanding of the real world applications of these situations. The goal of this paper is to better understand how certain moral theories can aid in the argument for or against the legalization of drugs.
Drug Legalization
There have been a vast array of arguments made both for and against the legalization of recreational drugs. Some of the central arguments which are against the legalization of drugs are surrounding the use of recreational drugs for pleasure and escapism, or removing oneself from the realities of life. As such, the arguments which are for drug legalization are greatly made up of the idea that individuals require freedoms which allow them to express their desires and fulfill their wants. So is it illegal to be high? Will others come into harm if drugs are legalized and readily available? On what grounds is the government entitled to dictate the legality of drug use during leisure periods? These and many other questions will be reviewed throughout this report. Since the study of ethics and moral theory has a variety of focuses – many of which differ in their core values – there are theories that provide strong elements for either side of the argument.
The goal throughout this report is to analyze which moral theories support as well as which theories dismiss the potential legalization of drugs. There are two main objectives for this report, (1) to decipher which theories have the strongest arguments for and against drug legalization and (2) the moral repercussions based on potential outcomes for either side. Upon initial analysis of the main topic, one could prematurely jump to the conclusion that there could not be any moral theories which support the legalization of recreational drugs, however the opposite is true. Through there are a number of theories which would never justify the use or legalization of drugs, there are just as many theories which can justify the opposite argument.
Moral Theories For Drug Legalization
One of the first moral theories that stood out in terms of potentially justifying drug legalization is the egoism theory. As stated in the textbook, this theory suggests that one’s self interest is the sole motivation for one’s actions. As with egoism, our actions can be justified so long as hey fulfill our deepest desires (Shafer-Landau, 2012, p.93). If a person desires to escape reality for a few hours via recreational drugs, then it is right to do so. One argument for egoism is that if every person could tend to themselves without worrying about other individuals, then the world would be better off (Shafer-Landau, 2012, p.108). Logically speaking it does make sense, since in this scenario every person would be fully engulfed in the fulfillment of their own desires, whether it be studying or spending leisure time taking a few hits of cocaine by the pool. The only issue with this argument is that egoists would not be able to accept doing anything that would be directly impacting others since it goes against what an egoist believes. However, one counter is plausible in regards to this discrepancy; the idea that helping another or creating a more peaceful environment for others is not a self-fulfilling desire is not entirely true. It is absolutely possible for an egoist to have a deep desire to help others, that could be the action which gives them the most satisfaction. If every egoist has their own self-interest in mind, helping someone else could increase their own personal satisfaction as well as provide them with a potential ally should they need one in the future. Though the egoist theory has a few holes in its value system which require further evaluation, it is still a relevant enough theory which relates back to the idea that individuals should have the right to take part in whatever they choose by their own free will to fulfill their desires.
Aside from egoism, another theory that would support the legalization of drugs is utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is almost the polar opposite of egoism, but it provides a very strong argument for the potential legalization of drugs in a very different way. Utilitarianism is based around the idea that the consequences of one’s actions determine whether they are right or wrong. This is a widely known theory that stems from consequentialism. Acts that are considered right would be the ones which achieve the greatest utility for the greatest number of people, since it is the consequence that matters (Shafer-Landau, 2012, p.124). One way to connect utilitarianism to the argument of legalizing drugs is to look at the bigger picture. The legalization of drugs could potentially yield the greatest utility since the current war on drugs is hurting so many. If drugs were to be legalized, a utilitarian would argue that legalization would take pressure off governing bodies, families of cartels, users and non-users alike since the drug war would be virtually nonexistent. Besides the betterment of the society at large, utilitarians would argue that it could also be economically advisable since the government could tax recreational drugs as they do with alcohol and tobacco currently, bringing more money back into the system.
Unfortunately, some people could potentially feel the negative effects of the legalization. Families with members who struggle with addiction and workplaces may struggle to implement new non-discriminatory policies around drug use. However, utilitarianism does not aim to benefit every single person, it aims to benefit the greatest number of people and hypothetically speaking, legalizing drugs could achieve a significantly higher number of positive consequences than negative ones, especially in regards to pleasure and happiness.
Utilitarianism tells us not to focus on our friends, family or even ourselves. It tells us that if we aim to achieve true morality, we must do everything with the understanding that our actions could potentially impact a much broader array of the community (Shafer-Landau, 2012, p.125). It is easy to make sense of right and wrong using utilitarianism since it is so impartial. It does not matter who is reaping the rewards of a certain decision, it only matters that a majority is pleased.
One of the most prominent classical utilitarians is John Stuart Mill who had his own view based around utilitarianism and hedonism. Mills suggests that “…the best pleasures for human beings were those that come only through hard work -especially the work of the mind” (Shafer-Landau, 2012, p.24). He believed that pleasure was right and pain was wrong and it was not necessary to achieve utility for the most people but utility in some regard however small. Mill was able to counter critiques by way of arguing that humans are capable of finding pleasure in very sophisticated, utility achieving actions, not just meer physical pleasure. Mills is relevant to the argument for drug legalization because artistic and intellectual pleasure were at the top of his list (Shafer-Landau, 2012, p.25); if drugs are capable to aiding one in opening regions of the mind which are dormant without such intervention, why would people be restricted in using it legally? Drugs being illegal would restrict the potential for certain peoples artistic and intellectual endeavours which would directly conflict with Mill’s beliefs.
These theories can help justify the legalization of drugs, both with subcategories and both on opposite ends of the spectrum. This shows that morality and ethics are such vast topics of discussion that there will always be a way to justify even the most controversial topics.
Moral Theories Against Drug Legalization
Nicomachean ethics is a name given to Aristotle’s philosophical work, namely with virtue ethics. The idea of virtue ethics rationalizes the redirection of a moral duty based thinking into one focused on virtuous characteristics (Shafer-Landau, 2012, p.252). The reason this is relevant in regards to the argument against drug legalization is because the main gripe Aristotle would have with the potential legalization of drugs is the resulting inability to function as a reasonable person. It is stated that an action is right if it is done by a person of exemplary virtue, and a virtuous person became that way because they were able to use reason to understand how to act accordingly (Shafer-Landau, 2012, p.253).
This ties into drug legality because drugs which are capable of altering reality (or one’s perception of reality) impedes on the possibility of that person being able to take things for face value and react/behave rationally. If certain drugs are capable of altering a person’s perception so greatly, there is no possible way of justifying the legalization of such substances through virtue ethics since it would be morally impermissible – or careless – to willingly allow for open participation of these activities. Though drug use in and of itself does not dictate virtue or character, it is a fact that being under the influence will undermine the rational capacities that a person possesses, which inhibits one’s ability to clearly examine their decisions.
Moving forward in the discussion of arguments against drug legalization, the central concept surrounding Immanuel Kant’s moral theory called the Kantian perspective can be analyzed. This theory is based around the idea of justice and fairness (Shafer-Landau, 2012, p.154), meaning that there are certain maxims which are absolute and prohibit certain actions no matter the circumstance.
There are two central questions which are associated with the Kantian perspective; (i) is it rational to will everyone to act the accordingly, and (ii) how would it feel if the roles were reversed? (Shafer-Landau, 2012, p.155). No matter how much potential happiness an action could bring (i.e taking a few hits of cocaine after a long stressful day), the answer to both of the above questions must be yes in order to proceed with the action. Specifically with the issue of drug legalization, there is no way to justify every single person doing drugs since it would pose a huge risk to society at large. Since it is impossible to justify the act on a large scale, legalizing drugs would put societies at risk for uproar if everyone decided to use at the same time, or small instances could lead to catastrophes. This is the main reason why the Kantian perspective would be against the legalization of drugs, it would degrade the golden rule since people under the influence are incapable of making rational and ethical decisions for the betterment of all.
Circling back to the principle of categorical imperatives, this is a large part of Immanuel Kant’s moral ideologies. These are requirements or rules that do not depend on what individuals care about (Shafer-Landau, 2012, p.163). A current categorical imperative would be that drugs are controlled substances for a reason and no person should use them through illegal means for personal satisfaction. Though there are people that still find drugs through underground tactics, society as a whole sees this as an immoral act. So the rule is still applicable since it is only the outliers and criminals who disobey such an imperative. The general public is still able to look at illegal drugs and ask both questions without issue since everyone (aside from criminals) is expected to act accordingly and if the roles were reversed the same applies.
These among some others are moral theories which would be used in a fight against the legalization of drugs since their values are steadfast and very clear in their beliefs. Although each theory differs in its own way, it is very plausible that they can be strong arguments against the legalization of recreational substances.
Closing Statements
Through the understanding and analysis of a variety of theories, it is clear that whether a person is fighting for or against legalization, they will manage to find moral theories to back their argument. Though there is no way to say that one side is right and the other is wrong, it is worth mentioning that each theory brought forth relevant current issues within today’s society.
The arguments for the legalization of drugs varies greatly in that the theories cannot be grouped into a similar category. They vary all the way from the most self-driven ideals to theories that pertain to yielding the greatest utility.
On the other hand, the theories that are against the legalization of drugs, are easier to group and see the similarities between them. The greatest similarity between the theories against legalization is the fact that the main idea of each theory involved is maintaining a clear view of the outside world aside from one’s own life and needs. Because of the similar tone of these theories, it is easier to validate and see the truth in them as compared to their counterparts. The theories which can be connected to the argument for legalization require much more exploration and consideration since there are some information gaps present.
Overall, these theories along with many others, are relevant topics when discussing controversial or difficult topics. Should governing bodies ever have to make such a big decision, one would hope that they look further than the surface aspects and delve deeper into the moral and ethical arguments to come to a decision which will be in favour of as many citizens as possible, with the least amount of negative consequences.
References
- Shafer-Landau, Russ. (2012) The Fundamentals of Ethics. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press Inc.