7 ms·

Exactly. The history said, in this case, that money and power did not win the dispute, not that their influence does not exist or should be considered negligibl

by soneca 11y ago

Exactly. The history said, in this case, that money and power did not win the dispute, not that their influence does not exist or should be considered negligible. So, if in the case of drugs, society moral standards, money and power are all at the same side; what's the chance of grassroot movement changing the laws? That question was not rethorical, but giving my own answer, I think the path is changing the perception about drug addicts. That they are ill people, not criminals. If the social perception of a drug addict is the same as an alcoholic, then there is a chance of stopping the war on drugs.

rayiner 11y ago
You're ignoring a morally significant dimension to the problem. Nobody becomes a drug addict by accident. They choose to do drugs and take the risk not just of bodily harm, but of becoming unable to support their families and becoming a burden on society. And your suggestion is that society should spend money to treat them of an illness that was their fault to begin with. I happen to agree with you that treatment, not prosecution is the answer for drug addicts. But there's legitimate moral reasons to oppose the idea. Besides that, drug use is already well on its way to becoming decriminalized. The drug war is aimed not at users, but mainly at importers and purveyors. That poses another moral question: if drugs are harmful and addictive, why can't society ban people from selling them, like it does for all sorts of other harmful products? I understand the cost-benefit justification (bans are ineffective), but voters aren't driven by cost-benefit analysis. There are legitimate moral reasons to oppose the idea that we should just let people defy society and sell harmful products just because we can't effectively prevent them from doing so.
- cichli 11y ago
  "Nobody becomes a drug addict by accident." If I choose to take drugs without the intention of becoming addicted, and I become addicted, then yes, I became addicted by accident. Even if I was aware of the risks of becoming addicted. Much like how if I decide to drive my car without the intention of hitting anyone, then if I hit someone, it is deemed an accident. Even if I was aware of the risks of hitting someone with my car.
  - logicrook 11y ago
    The analogy is "I decide to drive my car" while drunk "then I hit someone". In which case you are responsible. There is no accident. It's all a question of probabilities and risk. The probability to hit someone while driving normally are pretty weak, and the consequences fairly low in normal circumstances (i.e. while you respect every law). When drunk, the probabilities go through the roof, as well as how damaging the consequences can be. When you start to take drugs, even considering all the surrounding context, the consequences can be terrible and the probabilities are quite high. So no, it not an accident, assuming you see yourself as a human being, able to think about these. If you see yourself as a victim who couldn't foresee anything, then good for you.
    - mtreis86 11y ago
      I agree with your assertments about drinking and driving and the probabilities of harmful outcomes. I just don't think it is a good analogy for hardcore drug use. Many of us did not choose to start taking drugs. Not with any real sense of context. The consequences are very often "not real" until they become "all too real." A better analogy, would be "What do you do when you find yourself in a car moving at high speed with no brakes and no control over speed?" This analogy specifically does not mention how you got into that position. Because its sort of irrelevant how your brakes came to be shot. What is relevant is how you can stop without causing damage to anyone else - in this situation, like with hardcore drug use, everyone involved is a victim. My point here is that recovery and harm reduction are not about casting blame. They are about finding a damn barrier to run into instead of a minivan full of kids.
      - logicrook 11y ago
        The whole "drug users are victims" makes absolutely no more sense that "any criminal is a victim". You can't find a single person in the world who doesn't have bad circumstances. Even the people at Goldman-Sachs may have had a bad history of bullying, a difficult childhood because of divorce, a family that induced an unhealthy relation to competition or money, whatever. This example is not even a joke. Many "privileged" people had really bad psychological circumstances. But you won't say that any of the wall street crooks are victims. I know a guy who spent 8 years of his life in prison, in many visits, mostly for petty theft and drug use/traffic (mostly cannabis). He had a really horrible life, and is a pretty cool guy, although he's obviously still struggling with addiction. He often says "there are only innocent people in prison, at least they all say that".
- akiselev 11y ago
  > But there's legitimate moral reasons to oppose the idea. Are those the same "moral reasons" that people opposed the idea of suffrage and civil rights?
- bryondowd 11y ago
  Actually, a fairly large number of people do get addicted accidentally. It often starts with a serious injury, leading to prescribed painkillers, and even using as directed by your physician can develop a dependence. Not to mention those with chronic pain who can't just stop taking them. And that dependence can take over and escalate very easily. I've seen and heard of plenty of hardworking upstanding people one would never expect becoming addicts and eventually turning to illegal means to scratch the itch. And then there's the other end of things, where you've got young teens experimenting and getting hooked while they are young and stupid. Or those who are being abused or suffering mental health issues with no access to mental health services, and end up self-medicating just to get by. You can say 'they should have just gotten help' but it's hardly that easy, even for an adult, and you can't expect a 14yo kid with apathetic (or worse) parents to figure out how to get help for themselves or even know that they need that sort of help. Never mind the stigma associated with seeking help. So no, even look at morality and not cost, it's very closed-minded to assume all drug addicts should be held to blame for their own addiction and just left to wallow in their misery.
- DanBC 11y ago
  There is considerable overlap between people who've experienced abuse and people who are addicted to drugs. In that light your comments about "they chose to do it" are horrible. People are self-medicating to relieve trauma. It might not be an effective way to relieve trauma, but given the piss-poor state of psychological treatment or judicial system for survivors of abuse it's not surprising people end up with sub-optimal solutions.
  - michaelbuddy 11y ago
    The comments were horrible? I don't think so. There are also a lot of selfish people using drugs who screw others over at every turn. And you can't ignore that fact. A lot of people need to hit bottom in the process to recovery so you can't just give them the "victim" label either, it's about personal responsibility as well for MANY people. I'm not discounting abuse or whatever happenstance, but some are just bad people and it's not "horrible" to consider the reality of what they've done. Because some perpetrators of violent crime were victims before, but they have responsibility towards awareness and however they learn to come to terms with it is on them, not us.
- soneca 11y ago
  I'm not saying there are not legitimate moral reasons to oppose decriminalizing drugs (although I disagree with them). I'm just saying that if you want to decriminalize drugs, the most effective way in my opinion is to convince those that oppose it based on moral reasons to change their mind. The same moral reasons you listed to condemn drug addicts can be applied to alcohol addicts. But those are saw more as ill people by the same society that consider drug addicts criminals. So I think it is a possible path.
- greggarious 11y ago
  I was prescribed Xanax, for anxiety attacks. The doctor verbally said to take it as needed, but did not warn of addictive potential. The bottle however, states to take 2x daily, no warning about addiction. Luckily, I am educated and intelligent, so I avoid taking it unless absolutely necessary, and now go months without needing it. I have friends who were not so lucky - they interpreted "as needed" as to mean "as the bottle says if I feel any tinge of axiety". They got addicted and at best, had to go through expensive rehab programs. At worst, they succumbed to depression and died from it. Please, do tell more me how a PhD student who follows their doctor's instructions, assuming they are a fellow expert, should be judged as having a moral failure.
  - saiya-jin 11y ago
    touching story... nowhere I ever lived in europe I met people that got hooked on these prescription drugs (and even ended up worse), at least I didn't know. is this just my case? or some laws in US are less prohibitive (but where are the doctor's morals? don't tell me all are rotten)
    - metaphorm 11y ago
      http://www.cdc.gov/drugoverdose/pdf/hhs_prescription_drug_abuse_report_09.2013.pdf http://www.cdc.gov/drugoverdose/pdf/hhs_prescription_drug_ab... you might find this interesting reading then. here's a quote from the executive summary. > The United States is in the midst of an unprecedented drug overdose epidemic. Drug overdose death rates have increased five-fold since 1980.1 By 2009, drug overdose deaths outnumbered deaths due to motor vehicle crashes for the first time in the U.S. Prescription drugs, especially opioid analgesics, have been increasingly involved in drug overdose deaths.
      - jessaustin 11y ago
        Clearly, we need more Drug War.
- dionidium 11y ago
  "Nobody becomes a drug addict by accident" is a remarkably ignorant way to describe the process of addiction.
- EdHominem 11y ago
  > Nobody becomes a drug addict by accident. Not true. Many people reasonably take the pills their doctor gives them and end up with an addiction. > That poses another moral question: if drugs are harmful and addictive, why can't society ban people from selling them Because you can't. It failed. It's not a moral question. In fact, that's specifically the problem. > but voters aren't driven by cost-benefit analysis. So, what of it? We should keep doing things we know don't work because the uninformed don't understand?
  - ufmace 11y ago
    >> but voters aren't driven by cost-benefit analysis. >So, what of it? We should keep doing things we know don't work because the uninformed don't understand? So we live in a democracy, and so have to pay at least some attention to what the people want. The alternative is a dictatorship of some sort. Historically, those tend to ignore cost-benefit analysis and whether or not things actually work just as much as any democracy. Main difference is that the opinions of only one or a handful of people matter, and you have no access to influence those opinions, no matter what you think of them.
    - EdHominem 11y ago
      Sure we care what the people want. If they don't want to die in fires we hire fire-professionals and fund them to prevent and extinguish fires, teach fire-safety, etc. Somehow people don't consider it a dictatorship that we don't poll the common person for fire-safety law... And especially in an area (drugs) where we know that hundreds of millions of dollars of propaganda and advertising have been spent on teaching lies, we shouldn't pretend that polling the victims is going to be informative in relation to their natural (untampered) desires.
    - ZenoArrow 11y ago
      > "So we live in a democracy, and so have to pay at least some attention to what the people want." Why isn't marijuana legal across the US then? http://www.gallup.com/poll/186260/back-legal-marijuana.aspx http://www.gallup.com/poll/186260/back-legal-marijuana.aspx
    - 11y ago
- zeveb 11y ago
  > if drugs are harmful and addictive, why can't society ban people from selling them, like it does for all sorts of other harmful products? That begs the question: should society ban the sale of harmful products? I can buy: a sword; a gun; a packet of cigarettes; arsenic; cyanide; Doritos; Dianetics; Season 1 of Survivor and so forth. All of these things may be argued by some to be harmful (and by others not to be). Why may I not choose to buy cocaine, LSD or marijuana as well?
  - gozur88 11y ago
    The reason is people take it as given if you mess yourself up the rest of us will have to pay for your treatment. If I have to pay for your mistakes, then I want some say in what you're doing. Personally, I'd rather live in a more libertarian society, where you could do whatever you want (to yourself) and accept the consequences. But that's not the society we live in.
    - koide 11y ago
      But alcohol and tobacco are just as harmful in the sense of having to pay for the treatments and the damage to others as the rest of the drugs. Why ignore them? It really makes no sense...
      - gozur88 11y ago
        There are all sorts of restrictions on alcohol and tobacco. In the US alcohol would be illegal if the government hadn't tried and failed to make it illegel.
        koide 11y ago
        All sorts, except the sort that applies to all the rest of the drugs. It still makes no sense.
        gozur88 11y ago
        Alcohol would be illegal in the US if they hadn't tried and failed already.
- dfraser992 11y ago
  Alcohol is a drug, it is known for certain to be toxic, its abuse, and possibly even use (over years) is harmful.... yet society allows its use and even promotes it (and in Britain, its abuse is encouraged) Yet alcoholics tend to be regarded as having an illness and are not treated as criminals, as opposed to what heroin addicts go through. Any discussion of the drug war that doesn't involve a discussion of the hypocrisy around alcohol is sorely lacking. And the drug war is about users - the UK government is currently stealthily spreading fear based propaganda around cannabis use through charity type organizations that are not obviously tied to the government. And morality? Forget it. There really is no such thing as morality in Western societies today, except around the extreme things like pedophilia... and even then, that was hidden under the rug for decades - e.g. Jimmy Savile or the Catholic Church. Trying to bring morality into this sort of discussion is a feint. Morality tends to be an excuse for authoritarian attitudes and positions. The best solution is to have an informed populace. Harm minimization and a more sophisticated understanding around altered states and psychological/spiritual issues by society. But that sort of thing does not mesh well with the agenda of a lot of politicians and other people.
- metaphorm 11y ago
  > The drug war is aimed not at users, but mainly at importers and purveyors. oh please. go tell that to the black community.
- drcube 11y ago
  Alcoholism is a disease, but it's the only disease that you can get yelled at for having. "Dammit Otto, you're an alcoholic!" vs. "Dammit Otto, you have lupus!"
- saidajigumi 11y ago
  But there's legitimate moral reasons to oppose the idea. No. First, your assumptions around choice, etc. encode a whole panoply of privileged thinking. That all people have the same information, peer support, life context, apparent access to life paths and choices, etc. But let's just let that go. The other replies re: accidental addiction and a whole host of other information out there contradicts this position well enough. The real problem with this conclusion is that it is morally illegitimate to allow a social and humanitarian problem to persist, intensify, and spread because of any so-called moral position. "Morality" that creates a set of decisions (punish drug users!) but ignores the ultimate moral fallout of those decisions is itself a position bereft of actual morality.

by soneca 11y ago

rayiner 11y ago

You're ignoring a morally significant dimension to the problem. Nobody becomes a drug addict by accident. They choose to do drugs and take the risk not just of bodily harm, but of becoming unable to support their families and becoming a burden on society. And your suggestion is that society should spend money to treat them of an illness that was their fault to begin with. I happen to agree with you that treatment, not prosecution is the answer for drug addicts. But there's legitimate moral reasons to oppose the idea. Besides that, drug use is already well on its way to becoming decriminalized. The drug war is aimed not at users, but mainly at importers and purveyors. That poses another moral question: if drugs are harmful and addictive, why can't society ban people from selling them, like it does for all sorts of other harmful products? I understand the cost-benefit justification (bans are ineffective), but voters aren't driven by cost-benefit analysis. There are legitimate moral reasons to oppose the idea that we should just let people defy society and sell harmful products just because we can't effectively prevent them from doing so.

cichli 11y ago
"Nobody becomes a drug addict by accident." If I choose to take drugs without the intention of becoming addicted, and I become addicted, then yes, I became addicted by accident. Even if I was aware of the risks of becoming addicted. Much like how if I decide to drive my car without the intention of hitting anyone, then if I hit someone, it is deemed an accident. Even if I was aware of the risks of hitting someone with my car.
- logicrook 11y ago
  The analogy is "I decide to drive my car" while drunk "then I hit someone". In which case you are responsible. There is no accident. It's all a question of probabilities and risk. The probability to hit someone while driving normally are pretty weak, and the consequences fairly low in normal circumstances (i.e. while you respect every law). When drunk, the probabilities go through the roof, as well as how damaging the consequences can be. When you start to take drugs, even considering all the surrounding context, the consequences can be terrible and the probabilities are quite high. So no, it not an accident, assuming you see yourself as a human being, able to think about these. If you see yourself as a victim who couldn't foresee anything, then good for you.
  - mtreis86 11y ago
    I agree with your assertments about drinking and driving and the probabilities of harmful outcomes. I just don't think it is a good analogy for hardcore drug use. Many of us did not choose to start taking drugs. Not with any real sense of context. The consequences are very often "not real" until they become "all too real." A better analogy, would be "What do you do when you find yourself in a car moving at high speed with no brakes and no control over speed?" This analogy specifically does not mention how you got into that position. Because its sort of irrelevant how your brakes came to be shot. What is relevant is how you can stop without causing damage to anyone else - in this situation, like with hardcore drug use, everyone involved is a victim. My point here is that recovery and harm reduction are not about casting blame. They are about finding a damn barrier to run into instead of a minivan full of kids.
    - logicrook 11y ago
      The whole "drug users are victims" makes absolutely no more sense that "any criminal is a victim". You can't find a single person in the world who doesn't have bad circumstances. Even the people at Goldman-Sachs may have had a bad history of bullying, a difficult childhood because of divorce, a family that induced an unhealthy relation to competition or money, whatever. This example is not even a joke. Many "privileged" people had really bad psychological circumstances. But you won't say that any of the wall street crooks are victims. I know a guy who spent 8 years of his life in prison, in many visits, mostly for petty theft and drug use/traffic (mostly cannabis). He had a really horrible life, and is a pretty cool guy, although he's obviously still struggling with addiction. He often says "there are only innocent people in prison, at least they all say that".
akiselev 11y ago
> But there's legitimate moral reasons to oppose the idea. Are those the same "moral reasons" that people opposed the idea of suffrage and civil rights?
bryondowd 11y ago
Actually, a fairly large number of people do get addicted accidentally. It often starts with a serious injury, leading to prescribed painkillers, and even using as directed by your physician can develop a dependence. Not to mention those with chronic pain who can't just stop taking them. And that dependence can take over and escalate very easily. I've seen and heard of plenty of hardworking upstanding people one would never expect becoming addicts and eventually turning to illegal means to scratch the itch. And then there's the other end of things, where you've got young teens experimenting and getting hooked while they are young and stupid. Or those who are being abused or suffering mental health issues with no access to mental health services, and end up self-medicating just to get by. You can say 'they should have just gotten help' but it's hardly that easy, even for an adult, and you can't expect a 14yo kid with apathetic (or worse) parents to figure out how to get help for themselves or even know that they need that sort of help. Never mind the stigma associated with seeking help. So no, even look at morality and not cost, it's very closed-minded to assume all drug addicts should be held to blame for their own addiction and just left to wallow in their misery.
DanBC 11y ago
There is considerable overlap between people who've experienced abuse and people who are addicted to drugs. In that light your comments about "they chose to do it" are horrible. People are self-medicating to relieve trauma. It might not be an effective way to relieve trauma, but given the piss-poor state of psychological treatment or judicial system for survivors of abuse it's not surprising people end up with sub-optimal solutions.
- michaelbuddy 11y ago
  The comments were horrible? I don't think so. There are also a lot of selfish people using drugs who screw others over at every turn. And you can't ignore that fact. A lot of people need to hit bottom in the process to recovery so you can't just give them the "victim" label either, it's about personal responsibility as well for MANY people. I'm not discounting abuse or whatever happenstance, but some are just bad people and it's not "horrible" to consider the reality of what they've done. Because some perpetrators of violent crime were victims before, but they have responsibility towards awareness and however they learn to come to terms with it is on them, not us.
soneca 11y ago
I'm not saying there are not legitimate moral reasons to oppose decriminalizing drugs (although I disagree with them). I'm just saying that if you want to decriminalize drugs, the most effective way in my opinion is to convince those that oppose it based on moral reasons to change their mind. The same moral reasons you listed to condemn drug addicts can be applied to alcohol addicts. But those are saw more as ill people by the same society that consider drug addicts criminals. So I think it is a possible path.
greggarious 11y ago
I was prescribed Xanax, for anxiety attacks. The doctor verbally said to take it as needed, but did not warn of addictive potential. The bottle however, states to take 2x daily, no warning about addiction. Luckily, I am educated and intelligent, so I avoid taking it unless absolutely necessary, and now go months without needing it. I have friends who were not so lucky - they interpreted "as needed" as to mean "as the bottle says if I feel any tinge of axiety". They got addicted and at best, had to go through expensive rehab programs. At worst, they succumbed to depression and died from it. Please, do tell more me how a PhD student who follows their doctor's instructions, assuming they are a fellow expert, should be judged as having a moral failure.
- saiya-jin 11y ago
  touching story... nowhere I ever lived in europe I met people that got hooked on these prescription drugs (and even ended up worse), at least I didn't know. is this just my case? or some laws in US are less prohibitive (but where are the doctor's morals? don't tell me all are rotten)
  - metaphorm 11y ago
    http://www.cdc.gov/drugoverdose/pdf/hhs_prescription_drug_abuse_report_09.2013.pdf http://www.cdc.gov/drugoverdose/pdf/hhs_prescription_drug_ab... you might find this interesting reading then. here's a quote from the executive summary. > The United States is in the midst of an unprecedented drug overdose epidemic. Drug overdose death rates have increased five-fold since 1980.1 By 2009, drug overdose deaths outnumbered deaths due to motor vehicle crashes for the first time in the U.S. Prescription drugs, especially opioid analgesics, have been increasingly involved in drug overdose deaths.
    - jessaustin 11y ago
      Clearly, we need more Drug War.
dionidium 11y ago
"Nobody becomes a drug addict by accident" is a remarkably ignorant way to describe the process of addiction.
EdHominem 11y ago
> Nobody becomes a drug addict by accident. Not true. Many people reasonably take the pills their doctor gives them and end up with an addiction. > That poses another moral question: if drugs are harmful and addictive, why can't society ban people from selling them Because you can't. It failed. It's not a moral question. In fact, that's specifically the problem. > but voters aren't driven by cost-benefit analysis. So, what of it? We should keep doing things we know don't work because the uninformed don't understand?
- ufmace 11y ago
  >> but voters aren't driven by cost-benefit analysis. >So, what of it? We should keep doing things we know don't work because the uninformed don't understand? So we live in a democracy, and so have to pay at least some attention to what the people want. The alternative is a dictatorship of some sort. Historically, those tend to ignore cost-benefit analysis and whether or not things actually work just as much as any democracy. Main difference is that the opinions of only one or a handful of people matter, and you have no access to influence those opinions, no matter what you think of them.
  - EdHominem 11y ago
    Sure we care what the people want. If they don't want to die in fires we hire fire-professionals and fund them to prevent and extinguish fires, teach fire-safety, etc. Somehow people don't consider it a dictatorship that we don't poll the common person for fire-safety law... And especially in an area (drugs) where we know that hundreds of millions of dollars of propaganda and advertising have been spent on teaching lies, we shouldn't pretend that polling the victims is going to be informative in relation to their natural (untampered) desires.
  - ZenoArrow 11y ago
    > "So we live in a democracy, and so have to pay at least some attention to what the people want." Why isn't marijuana legal across the US then? http://www.gallup.com/poll/186260/back-legal-marijuana.aspx http://www.gallup.com/poll/186260/back-legal-marijuana.aspx
  - 11y ago
zeveb 11y ago
> if drugs are harmful and addictive, why can't society ban people from selling them, like it does for all sorts of other harmful products? That begs the question: should society ban the sale of harmful products? I can buy: a sword; a gun; a packet of cigarettes; arsenic; cyanide; Doritos; Dianetics; Season 1 of Survivor and so forth. All of these things may be argued by some to be harmful (and by others not to be). Why may I not choose to buy cocaine, LSD or marijuana as well?
- gozur88 11y ago
  The reason is people take it as given if you mess yourself up the rest of us will have to pay for your treatment. If I have to pay for your mistakes, then I want some say in what you're doing. Personally, I'd rather live in a more libertarian society, where you could do whatever you want (to yourself) and accept the consequences. But that's not the society we live in.
  - koide 11y ago
    But alcohol and tobacco are just as harmful in the sense of having to pay for the treatments and the damage to others as the rest of the drugs. Why ignore them? It really makes no sense...
    - gozur88 11y ago
      There are all sorts of restrictions on alcohol and tobacco. In the US alcohol would be illegal if the government hadn't tried and failed to make it illegel.
      - koide 11y ago
        All sorts, except the sort that applies to all the rest of the drugs. It still makes no sense.
        gozur88 11y ago
        Alcohol would be illegal in the US if they hadn't tried and failed already.
dfraser992 11y ago
Alcohol is a drug, it is known for certain to be toxic, its abuse, and possibly even use (over years) is harmful.... yet society allows its use and even promotes it (and in Britain, its abuse is encouraged) Yet alcoholics tend to be regarded as having an illness and are not treated as criminals, as opposed to what heroin addicts go through. Any discussion of the drug war that doesn't involve a discussion of the hypocrisy around alcohol is sorely lacking. And the drug war is about users - the UK government is currently stealthily spreading fear based propaganda around cannabis use through charity type organizations that are not obviously tied to the government. And morality? Forget it. There really is no such thing as morality in Western societies today, except around the extreme things like pedophilia... and even then, that was hidden under the rug for decades - e.g. Jimmy Savile or the Catholic Church. Trying to bring morality into this sort of discussion is a feint. Morality tends to be an excuse for authoritarian attitudes and positions. The best solution is to have an informed populace. Harm minimization and a more sophisticated understanding around altered states and psychological/spiritual issues by society. But that sort of thing does not mesh well with the agenda of a lot of politicians and other people.
metaphorm 11y ago
> The drug war is aimed not at users, but mainly at importers and purveyors. oh please. go tell that to the black community.
drcube 11y ago
Alcoholism is a disease, but it's the only disease that you can get yelled at for having. "Dammit Otto, you're an alcoholic!" vs. "Dammit Otto, you have lupus!"
saidajigumi 11y ago
But there's legitimate moral reasons to oppose the idea. No. First, your assumptions around choice, etc. encode a whole panoply of privileged thinking. That all people have the same information, peer support, life context, apparent access to life paths and choices, etc. But let's just let that go. The other replies re: accidental addiction and a whole host of other information out there contradicts this position well enough. The real problem with this conclusion is that it is morally illegitimate to allow a social and humanitarian problem to persist, intensify, and spread because of any so-called moral position. "Morality" that creates a set of decisions (punish drug users!) but ignores the ultimate moral fallout of those decisions is itself a position bereft of actual morality.