Sanjay Gupta Admits He Was Wrong On Pot

[TheNextEra]

I would not suggest that pot is either non-harmful or non-detrimental to people. I would also suggest that ANYTHING which does damage to the soul, as the use of pot does, is ALWAYS immoral.

And that's fine that you think that. However, I think your authoritarian views are more damaging to the soul than any mind-altering substance. So does my thought trump your rights? No

 

[greyhat]

Science is not necessarily the antithesis, but it has most definitely been used in the last two centuries as a crutch by those who seek to remove the most basic tenants of morality and values from society. This has placed morality and science at odds with each other when in fact real science (not what we see often these days) tends to support morality and values far more often than it opposes them.

Often I find that morality and values are derived from religious dogma which can be dangerous. I disagree that science supports morality more often that it disagrees with them.

 

[Tigger]

And you're free to your OPINION. However, your OPINION is just that, and OPINION.

...And in my world that OPINION is the only thing that matter, TNE. You already know that.

And that's fine that you think that. However, I think your authoritarian views are more damaging to the soul than any mind-altering substance. So does my thought trump your rights? No

I've never said people don't have a right to do drugs. I have said they shouldn't have that right, but they do. My thought doesn't trump that right until I can get it placed into law. The difference between us is that I have, do, and will continue working to put my views into law and will enforce my opinions as law in those placse where I am in charge. Have/Do/Will you?

Often I find that morality and values are derived from religious dogma which can be dangerous. I disagree that science supports morality more often that it disagrees with them.

Morality superceeds religion. That's what most people seem to miss. True morality existed long before religion was ever a concept. Since true morality comes from the basic instincts and traits of our ancestors I'm not sure how true morality ever fails to be upheld in an unbiased scientific experiment.

 

[TheNextEra]

The difference between us is that I have, do, and will continue working to put my views into law and will enforce my opinions as law in those placse where I am in charge. Have/Do/Will you?

I don't have to work to get mine put in law, much of them are already law called the Consitution. Which is why the majority of your authoritarian views are irrelevant.

 

[Tigger]

I don't have to work to get mine put in law, much of them are already law called the Consitution. Which is why the majority of your authoritarian views are irrelevant.

Not irrelevant, just out of favor at the moment. One of the mistakes you folks who believe in letting people decide things for themselves make is in believing that people will continue to think the same way you do ad infinitum. That's just not true, and never has been.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Actually I have no respect for Mr. Bush or Mr. Cheney. I can't say I'm familiar with Mr. Yoo. Neither Mr. Bush nor Mr. Cheney have any more morals or values than any other US politician - namely NONE.



Science is not necessarily the antithesis, but it has most definitely been used in the last two centuries as a crutch by those who seek to remove the most basic tenants of morality and values from society. This has placed morality and science at odds with each other when in fact real science (not what we see often these days) tends to support morality and values far more often than it opposes them.



I am not in favor of slavery based on skin color or ethnicity. In other cases there may be a place for it.

I am totally serious when I say taht women should never have been given the right to vote or to be involved in the political process in any way.

That's what I thought.
The Bible sets out rules and regulations for who may or may not be enslaved, does it not? You're right, it doesn't rely on skin color.

 

[Tigger]

That's what I thought.
The Bible sets out rules and regulations for who may or may not be enslaved, does it not? You're right, it doesn't rely on skin color.

It's not about the Bible in my mind and never has been. Even back in the days when I WAS a Christian, which I haven't been for almost a dozen years at this point.

 

[greyhat]

Morality superceeds religion. That's what most people seem to miss. True morality existed long before religion was ever a concept. Since true morality comes from the basic instincts and traits of our ancestors I'm not sure how true morality ever fails to be upheld in an unbiased scientific experiment.

I disagree, The Laws of Nature supersede religion; however, morality and values are highly intertwined with human religious dogma. Human civilizations have always derived their value systems and by extension morality from a set of religious dogma.

 

[Tigger]

I disagree, The Laws of Nature supersede religion; however, morality and values are highly intertwined with human religious dogma. Human civilizations have always derived their value systems and by extension morality from a set of religious dogma.

The Laws of Nature, which are part of Morality most definitely supercede religion. Human civilization, which created the need for religion was built on the natural laws, instincts, and inate understandings that are the basis of morality. Things like the mother being not only the child-bearer but the child-raiser as well come from this time period.

 

[greyhat]

The Laws of Nature, which are part of Morality most definitely supercede religion. Human civilization, which created the need for religion was built on the natural laws, instincts, and inate understandings that are the basis of morality. Things like the mother being not only the child-bearer but the child-raiser as well come from this time period.

I think your confusing biological instinct which is coded into our DNA with morality which is a subjective interpretation of a set of values.

 

[Tigger]

I think your confusing biological instinct which is coded into our DNA with morality which is a subjective interpretation of a set of values.

There is no confusion at all. That biological instinct is the BASIS for morality, the foundation on which any meaningful and proper human society would be built upon, and the right way to live our lives.

 

[greyhat]

There is no confusion at all. That biological instinct is the BASIS for morality, the foundation on which any meaningful and proper human society would be built upon, and the right way to live our lives.

Only on the basis that we are sentient beings..morality isn't biological it is constructed around philosophical and often religious dogma.

 

[Midwest Lib]

Has anyone here actually seen the documentary? I'd think this thread would be more useful if we discussed the entire presentation, not just a general "I changed my mind" generalization with a lot of tangents!



I found it to be very informative. The story of the little girl brought me near tears. It's worth watching if for no other reason than to expand your knowledge on the subject. Sanjay does a FANTASTIC job at playing devil's advocate as well, bringing up many legitimate concerns about it's use as well. I found his final conclusion to stand in line with mine, so I will admit I am biased, but for a documentary it does pretty well at painting an entire picture.

 

[Cecil900]

Sorry for just jumping in on this thread and if it feels like I'm back tracking, new guy here.

Tigger, you seem to suggest that morality is a static concept. In that morality doesn't evolve, people just seems to gravitate farther and farther away from this "morality" that was set in stone. Im not trying to put words in your mouth, that's just what I have taken from what you were saying.

I would argue that morality is a dynamic, always evolving concept. Morality itself is what is considered socially acceptable, which is always evolving in our society. It is a natural process.
According to dictionary.com morality is:
"conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct."
Its a slow process, but I would say that if it is legal and accepted by society, it is in no way immoral. I think weed is just getting to the point where it is socially acceptable, and it is only a matter of time before our legislation reflects that.

 

[Thoreau72]

Sorry for just jumping in on this thread and if it feels like I'm back tracking, new guy here.

Tigger, you seem to suggest that morality is a static concept. In that morality doesn't evolve, people just seems to gravitate farther and farther away from this "morality" that was set in stone. Im not trying to put words in your mouth, that's just what I have taken from what you were saying.

I would argue that morality is a dynamic, always evolving concept. Morality itself is what is considered socially acceptable, which is always evolving in our society. It is a natural process.
According to dictionary.com morality is:
"conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct."
Its a slow process, but I would say that if it is legal and accepted by society, it is in no way immoral. I think weed is just getting to the point where it is socially acceptable, and it is only a matter of time before our legislation reflects that.

So then, since slavery was legal and accepted and practiced by society, it was moral?

Yikes! :roll:

 

[Cecil900]

So then, since slavery was legal and accepted and practiced by society, it was moral?

Yikes! :roll:

For many years society and religion certainly thought so.

 

[Tigger]

Tigger, you seem to suggest that morality is a static concept. In that morality doesn't evolve, people just seems to gravitate farther and farther away from this "morality" that was set in stone. Im not trying to put words in your mouth, that's just what I have taken from what you were saying.

No worries. You're absolutely correct on how I see morality and values.... they are an unchanging, immutable set of principles which cannot be altered.

I would argue that morality is a dynamic, always evolving concept. Morality itself is what is considered socially acceptable, which is always evolving in our society. It is a natural process.

I have to respectfully disagree. If it's really such a maleable concept, why is it that so many societies for so many centuries has such similar morals and values?

According to dictionary.com morality is: "conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct."
Its a slow process, but I would say that if it is legal and accepted by society, it is in no way immoral. I think weed is just getting to the point where it is socially acceptable, and it is only a matter of time before our legislation reflects that.

You've just proven my point about society going out of its way to find reasons and ways to avoid morality, with your concept of legality and acceptability. Does tha tmean in a society where it's legal and socially acceptable that rape isn't immoral? How about murder, fraud, or burglary?

 

[Cecil900]

I have to respectfully disagree. If it's really such a maleable concept, why is it that so many societies for so many centuries has such similar morals and values?

Not really. Different cultures and societies throughout human history have had very different views on morality.

You've just proven my point about society going out of its way to find reasons and ways to avoid morality, with your concept of legality and acceptability. Does tha tmean in a society where it's legal and socially acceptable that rape isn't immoral? How about murder, fraud, or burglary?

You're trying the same thing Henry tried to get me to admit in a sense.

We live in a world where we as a society have decided that these things are immoral, because if someone were to commit such an act it harms someone else. I don't see how it is a hard concept that we set our own morality. Maybe its because I don't believe in a god and that our morality stems from such a thing. I think we as a people are perfectly capable of coming up with our own rules.

 

[Tigger]

Not really. Different cultures and societies throughout human history have had very different views on morality.

Yet when we look at Western Europe (and even Eastern Europe) for nearly a thousand years from the end of the first milleium until the latter part of the 19th century you see a very similar and rarely changing set of morals and values, even as the countires and people changed greatly. It is only really with the Industrial Revolution and the rise of an even wider variety of political ideals that we've moved away from those values and morals.

We live in a world where we as a society have decided that these things are immoral, because if someone were to commit such an act it harms someone else. I don't see how it is a hard concept that we set our own morality. Maybe its because I don't believe in a god and that our morality stems from such a thing. I think we as a people are perfectly capable of coming up with our own rules.

The fact that they harm somone has nothing to do with them being moral or immoral. The fact that they are Wrong is what makes them immoral. The vast majority of people aren't bright enough to figure out what they want for breakfast, nevermind make decisions on anything of true importanc. I think you know that as well as I do.

 

[Cecil900]

Yet when we look at Western Europe (and even Eastern Europe) for nearly a thousand years from the end of the first milleium until the latter part of the 19th century you see a very similar and rarely changing set of morals and values, even as the countires and people changed greatly. It is only really with the Industrial Revolution and the rise of an even wider variety of political ideals that we've moved away from those values and morals.

Western Europe has been the only human society?

The fact that they harm somone has nothing to do with them being moral or immoral. The fact that they are Wrong is what makes them immoral.

And they are wrong because they harm someone else.

The vast majority of people aren't bright enough to figure out what they want for breakfast, nevermind make decisions on anything of true importanc. I think you know that as well as I do.

I would disagree. I believe that collectively as a society we are perfectly capable of making our own rules.

 

[Tigger]

I would disagree. I believe that collectively as a society we are perfectly capable of making our own rules.

Honestly, I think the more of us you get together the LESS likely we are to make the right decisions on ANYTHING.

 

[Thoreau72]

For many years society and religion certainly thought so.

For the sake of discussion, if we define 'moral' as being 'right', and 'immoral' as being 'wrong', then was slavery moral? Or are we at the mercy of the madness of the crowds?

 

[Geoist]

I've read enough of your posts here to understand your moral compass is spinning. Your moral standards are very close to those of John Yoo and George W. Bush or Dick Cheney--extremely low.

Below even them.

 

[Dittohead not!]

For the sake of discussion, if we define 'moral' as being 'right', and 'immoral' as being 'wrong', then was slavery moral? Or are we at the mercy of the madness of the crowds?

Just for sake of discussion, again, was slavery really so wrong?

It was an economic necessity while it existed. Moreover, it brought a whole new type of immigrants into America, increasing our diversity beyond what it would have been otherwise.

Further, the descendants of former slaves have reaped the benefit of having been born in a modern democratic society, rather than in a third world hellhole like, say for example, Somalia.

So, how was slavery wrong again?

 

[zstep18]

Yet when we look at Western Europe (and even Eastern Europe) for nearly a thousand years from the end of the first milleium until the latter part of the 19th century you see a very similar and rarely changing set of morals and values, even as the countires and people changed greatly. It is only really with the Industrial Revolution and the rise of an even wider variety of political ideals that we've moved away from those values and morals.

Wait, so you're saying the values and traditions of the Middle Ages were the same as those of the Renaissance? Gimme a break.

During the Middle Ages, values were placed on religious life and a detachment from public life. During the Renaissance, there was the philosophy of humanism, which stressed active involvement in public affairs. During the Renaissance, secular values had emerged which were not previously seen before.

So, in conclusion, values and morality does change over time.