Is the use of illicit drugs immoral? Pt. 1

To many people, drug use carries with it a stigma of immoral and otherwise unsavory behavior. Drug users are looked down upon in society, imprisoned, and outcast for the most part if they don't seek the help they need. But why is drug use seen as immoral?

The most immoral thing ( when you forget about the laws ) when it comes to drug use is, at least by my thoughts, self-harm. Substances such as alcohol, opiates, and benzodiazepines like Valium all carry with them the risk for physical addiction and with continued use, physiological damage as well as psychological dependance. Other substances like stimulants, including meth-amphetamine and cocaine cause intense psychological dependance which, although it lacks the disturbing and sometimes deadly consequences of physical withdrawal symptoms, can be almost as dangerous. Other substances, namely psychedelics such as THC, LSD, and salvia have little if any physically addictive characteristics, but smoking marijuana or salvia could damage the lungs, and kill brain cells. Also, the powerful psychedelic effects of LSD (which has been proven to be less toxic than asprin) or salvia could bring on manic episodes or possibly bring out underlying mental health issues such as schizophrenia. Clearly, drugs do cause harm when they are used and therefore it could be seen as immoral to take them, from a personal point of view, or perhaps from someone close to a user.

But by that logic, it could be immoral to eat fast food, take OTC medicines, smoke cigarettes, and many other things that are not viewed as harshly, or punished as brutally as illicit drug use. This is why the self-harm argument is flawed. People do things that are unhealthy all the time, with little consequence but the physical ones that manifest because of their activity. Should we imprison everyone on the grounds that they are being destructive to themselves? Who are we to determine what one does with their own body?

At what point does someone become self aware, and a recognized human?

To most, the defining moment where a baby becomes part of the human world is of course at birth.
At this moment, an infant has all the biological features that we have ( although they are in a developing stage ), and they have their first secular experience even though they will not remember it themselves.
But psychologically, infants are obviously still very behind a fully grown being. Even at this moment an infant still lacks a major thought characteristic that defines us as human, i.e. the ability to perceive our own actions and their impacts on others. But, realistically people don't gain the ability to think about their actions until about the age of three, hence the "terrible twos" and the erratic, and unacceptable behavior of most infants younger than that age. But to me, the defining thing that makes us human is the experience we share on this planet. It wouldn't be right to say that an infant isn't a human because it lacks the ability to think of its own impact because it is only beginning its experience here, and hasn't had the chance for their brain to develop to that point yet. In this case, I would say that the majority is right, and birth is the point where someone becomes a human in my eyes because it has joined our world, even though it is only in the beginning of its experience it has still crossed the threshold and is human in my eyes.

Can fetuses really be thought of as human?

After reading Marquis' essay about fetuses have a future like ours I began to think about whether they could even be considered human yet. Sure, they have the DNA, but there are a few other defining characteristics that I don't think they meet.

Propositions:

A. Fetuses have never seen the world that people live in, or had any experiences in it ( which is a huge part of what it means to be human, in my opinion ) All they 'know' is the inside of the womb, a world that would be very alien like to a person who has been alive long enough to know the true human experience.

B. Fetuses lack the capacity for thought, and limited sensory perception. The senses are still developing while a fetus is in the womb. Touch is the first to develop after 5 weeks of pregnancy, but remains limited, with slow but steady development until 12 weeks. This means that for the first 5 weeks, fetuses literally cannot feel, think, or do anything that makes someone human, really.

 Given these ideas I don't think it's right to think of a fetus as a fully fledged human being, but I am interested to have a conversation about this. Comments plz? ^.^

Is 'owning' a pet ethical?

In the modern age many people, especially animal rights activists have begun to question the ethics behind owning pets. Many people maintain that it is simply unethical to keep an animal in your home when it's entirely entitled to experience its life by its own means. But still others say that pets are dependent on humans for survival and therefore we have an inherent responsibility to care for them.

I think that in the case of pets it is important to contextualize the situation and consider the animal's ability to survive without us, and the possible benefits of living with us. In the case of most dogs, it would be crazy to believe that they could survive without human assistance, many dogs wouldn't know the first thing about how to catch prey; but on the other hand, how can we justify keeping a bird that was meant to fly across the sky, locked up in a cage? Or keeping a fish in a barren glass bowl, that if we  were subjected to life inside, would surely cause us to lose our minds. In these cases owning a pet could be likened to keeping a prisoner, because it's less like a pet and more like a living decoration that was deprived of any right or ability to lead its own life. This is why I think it's important to consider the animal itself when thinking about the ethics of pet ownership.

In conclusion, it is ethical to own most domesticated animals in modern times because they have been brought up to live along side humans, and many would be incapable of being independent. But in the case of wild animals like birds, fish, and reptiles this change to living along side humans in cages or water tanks would be catastrophic to their livelihoods, as they aren't adapted to those living conditions and many of these pets die because of it, which to me makes it quite unethical to own any undomesticated animals.

Is "murder" ever morally justifiable?

When it comes to justifying most anything, including murder, evil is in the eye of the beholder. 

     I'm a believer of Frued's idea that as people we inherently justify or rationalize our actions to protect ourselves from any emotional turmoil that could come about from them. People will justify just about any measure of evil as life events filter through their own moral values, the values held by their peers, and weigh against the circumstances driving their actions, their "motives". For instance the housewife who poisoned her late husband's coffee, the cold blooded suicide bomber, and even megalomaniac dictators like Joseph Stalin who had thousands of people massacred, all somehow rationalize their actions. So when asked the question is murder "morally justifiable?" I would say, sure, it just depends on who's asking. To me murder isn't something that you can or should really have to justify. If killing was what a situation came down to, there should be no doubt in my mind that it was a reasonable option given the circumstances, and therefore wouldn't require real "premeditated justification" which really to me indicates that an action was immoral. Of course my idea of what is morally justifiable may not agree with other people's idea of what is. Under the law, most religions, and many people's general moral code all together murder is never morally justifiable; so again, evil is in the eye of the beholder.