3 ms·

I barely drink anymore at my age but I don't look down on other people for doing so. It's their time and their body who am I to tell them what to do with it?

rayiner 1y ago
> who am I to tell them what to do? You’re an (apparently high functioning) member of society who has a moral obligation to help police individuals who negatively affect the people around them. People don’t drink in padded rooms. You can make society better by policing individual choices. E.g., in part by policing alcohol and caffeine consumption, Mormon men live 10 years longer than white men in the U.S. generally: https://www.deseret.com/2010/4/13/20375744/ucla-study-proves-mormons-live-longer/ https://www.deseret.com/2010/4/13/20375744/ucla-study-proves....
- simianparrot 1y ago
  Except mormons don’t police it; they make it shameful and morally wrong. Most western societies rely too heavily on laws to govern every aspect of their society when laws and police are there for the extremes; the rest must be managed by shaming and talking to people who break the unwritten moral rules. The reason for this is that societal morals evolve, change and adapt more organically than any rigid bureaucratic processes can. You don’t want law based dress codes beyond a certain bare minimum (ie. naked), but instead you want people to govern themselves and be encouraged to tell others off for dressing inappropriately around others in the community. Western liberal societies in particular have slid down into depravity because we’ve made it _immoral_ to be individual moralists. If it’s not against the law, it’s all acceptable. A man that abuses drugs and lives off welfare all his life is as lawful as a man that works hard every day for himself and his family and pays taxes that contribute to supporting the former’s lifestyle. But they are not morally the same, and it’s obvious to most of us. But we risk losing our livelihoods if we say so out loud.
  - rangestransform 1y ago
    Philosophically, what do I owe society if I exist without my consent? What is actually morally wrong about opting out and choosing to live on the kindness of society, if society is willingly kind to me through charity or laws? The social contract is a good place to start to think about this but still doesn’t address where someone’s debt to society comes from, besides not actively harming other humans.
    - simianparrot 1y ago
      For you to live comfortably off society without contributing anything back means someone else is paying for your comfort both monetarily (like taxes) or with their time and energy, maintaining all the services to facilitate your lifestyle. If you don’t see that as at least a little immoral that’s up to you, but I would never be comfortable doing so. It goes against my fundamental character. Society only works through cooperation, it’s not about a “debt”.
    - rayiner 1y ago
      Obligations taken on through consent are only a subset of all obligations. Obligations also arise out of the nature of a thing and its relationship to other things.
      - rangestransform 1y ago
        I'd be genuinely interested to hear about the other types of obligations, even if you just linked some reading material
- christophilus 1y ago
  Why do I have a moral obligation to police individuals who negatively affect those around them? That seems awfully subjective and likely to devolve into vigilante anarchy. There was a time when having a tatoo would mean you were negatively affecting those around you. Where do we citizens police draw the line?
  - binary132 1y ago
    tragedy of the commons strikes again
  - shadowgovt 1y ago
    There's "police" and police. I don't think anyone's recommending you pull on black tights, a kevlar vest with molded nipples, and a black cape and go knocking beers out of strangers' hands. There is, however, such a thing as noticing if your friends and loved ones are suffering from addiction and intervening to see what can be done before the addiction becomes someone else's problem. And speaking from some limited personal experience? Sometimes the problem someone is trying to medicate out with alcohol is feeling like nobody cares if they live or die. You might be surprised how much someone going out of their way to care does for a person's psyche. Tattoos don't generally correlate causally with vehicular manslaughter; overindulgence in alcohol does, we have the numbers on it.
    - rayiner 1y ago
      Yes. And a society that does gentle moral policing is a society that needs less harsh and impersonal government policing.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- potato3732842 1y ago
  >You’re an (apparently high functioning) member of society who has I'm sure I'm low functioning on some other axis then. >a moral obligation to help police individuals who negatively affect the people around them. People don’t drink in padded rooms. You saying that doesn't make it so. I could just as easily say you have an obligation not to interfere in other's matters except in the most flagrant cases of it directly affecting you.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- jacquesm 1y ago
  I really don't think you (as an apparently high functioning member of society) are in a position to lecture other people on their moral obligations on how to improve society. Mote, beam etc. Op is modest enough that they know their limits, that's a virtue, not a defect.
  - rayiner 1y ago
    Abdicating your responsibility to help maintain social order is not a virtue.
jgsser 1y ago
[flagged]

rayiner 1y ago

> who am I to tell them what to do? You’re an (apparently high functioning) member of society who has a moral obligation to help police individuals who negatively affect the people around them. People don’t drink in padded rooms. You can make society better by policing individual choices. E.g., in part by policing alcohol and caffeine consumption, Mormon men live 10 years longer than white men in the U.S. generally: https://www.deseret.com/2010/4/13/20375744/ucla-study-proves-mormons-live-longer/ https://www.deseret.com/2010/4/13/20375744/ucla-study-proves....

simianparrot 1y ago
Except mormons don’t police it; they make it shameful and morally wrong. Most western societies rely too heavily on laws to govern every aspect of their society when laws and police are there for the extremes; the rest must be managed by shaming and talking to people who break the unwritten moral rules. The reason for this is that societal morals evolve, change and adapt more organically than any rigid bureaucratic processes can. You don’t want law based dress codes beyond a certain bare minimum (ie. naked), but instead you want people to govern themselves and be encouraged to tell others off for dressing inappropriately around others in the community. Western liberal societies in particular have slid down into depravity because we’ve made it _immoral_ to be individual moralists. If it’s not against the law, it’s all acceptable. A man that abuses drugs and lives off welfare all his life is as lawful as a man that works hard every day for himself and his family and pays taxes that contribute to supporting the former’s lifestyle. But they are not morally the same, and it’s obvious to most of us. But we risk losing our livelihoods if we say so out loud.
- rangestransform 1y ago
  Philosophically, what do I owe society if I exist without my consent? What is actually morally wrong about opting out and choosing to live on the kindness of society, if society is willingly kind to me through charity or laws? The social contract is a good place to start to think about this but still doesn’t address where someone’s debt to society comes from, besides not actively harming other humans.
  - simianparrot 1y ago
    For you to live comfortably off society without contributing anything back means someone else is paying for your comfort both monetarily (like taxes) or with their time and energy, maintaining all the services to facilitate your lifestyle. If you don’t see that as at least a little immoral that’s up to you, but I would never be comfortable doing so. It goes against my fundamental character. Society only works through cooperation, it’s not about a “debt”.
  - rayiner 1y ago
    Obligations taken on through consent are only a subset of all obligations. Obligations also arise out of the nature of a thing and its relationship to other things.
    - rangestransform 1y ago
      I'd be genuinely interested to hear about the other types of obligations, even if you just linked some reading material
christophilus 1y ago
Why do I have a moral obligation to police individuals who negatively affect those around them? That seems awfully subjective and likely to devolve into vigilante anarchy. There was a time when having a tatoo would mean you were negatively affecting those around you. Where do we citizens police draw the line?
- binary132 1y ago
  tragedy of the commons strikes again
- shadowgovt 1y ago
  There's "police" and police. I don't think anyone's recommending you pull on black tights, a kevlar vest with molded nipples, and a black cape and go knocking beers out of strangers' hands. There is, however, such a thing as noticing if your friends and loved ones are suffering from addiction and intervening to see what can be done before the addiction becomes someone else's problem. And speaking from some limited personal experience? Sometimes the problem someone is trying to medicate out with alcohol is feeling like nobody cares if they live or die. You might be surprised how much someone going out of their way to care does for a person's psyche. Tattoos don't generally correlate causally with vehicular manslaughter; overindulgence in alcohol does, we have the numbers on it.
  - rayiner 1y ago
    Yes. And a society that does gentle moral policing is a society that needs less harsh and impersonal government policing.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
potato3732842 1y ago
>You’re an (apparently high functioning) member of society who has I'm sure I'm low functioning on some other axis then. >a moral obligation to help police individuals who negatively affect the people around them. People don’t drink in padded rooms. You saying that doesn't make it so. I could just as easily say you have an obligation not to interfere in other's matters except in the most flagrant cases of it directly affecting you.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
jacquesm 1y ago
I really don't think you (as an apparently high functioning member of society) are in a position to lecture other people on their moral obligations on how to improve society. Mote, beam etc. Op is modest enough that they know their limits, that's a virtue, not a defect.
- rayiner 1y ago
  Abdicating your responsibility to help maintain social order is not a virtue.

jgsser 1y ago

[flagged]