Morality

[Beskar]

Do you have an example of 'intellectualism taken to an extreme'?

"We are going to disregard all ethics and study for pure knowledge! There is no evil, except standing in the path of progress!"

Only thing I can think of, mad-scientist tropes.

[Hax]

"Everyone who is not intelligent enough should be forcibly sterilised"

[a completely inoffensive name]

What do you mean by this? Given the choice between chopping off all 4 or none of the limbs of a thief, chopping off 2 is the moral option?



Do you have an example of 'intellectualism taken to an extreme'?

Well chopping someones arms is an action not a behavior. The behavior is aggression, an extreme, the opposite extreme of which is timidity, the middle of which is something along the lines of confident. Of you want examples of intellectualism gone too far, hax gives a good example. Look at many of the policies of the progressives in America during the early twentieth century. Forcing ideas which work on paper but doesn't conform to or accommodate the changes to the lives of the public, is intellectualism to an extreme. There is a reason why the term ivory tower exists in the first place. Do you really believe intellectualism is virtuous to any and all degrees?

[HoreTore]

I accept the last two explanations of the concept, but I have trouble with naming it 'intellectualism'.

Both are examples of inherently stupid things. It's not the clever people who argue for limiting the vote based on IQ, for example, it is people who believe they are clever. The smart people knows that limiting the vote is not a very smart thing to do. There's a reason why the idea is widely discussed on blogs, but almost never in educational institutions.

If 'changes in the first half of the 20th century' is a reference to prohibition, I would disagree. Prohibition was absolutely needed, and it worked wonders. Compare substance abuse before and after prohibition for proof. There's a reason why the 50 years before prohibition is referred to as The Great Binge.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Well to go back a few posts, I said it was intellectualism taken to an extreme. I also feel it deserves a name of its own, separate from anything that might confer that the ideas are smart, which they are not. As GC notes, if you go far enough in both extremes, they start to look eerily similar. As for prohibition, the government could have just made public intoxication a death sentence and it would have achieved the same goal of scaring many and driving others underground. Prohibition is still a failure because the same results could have been achieved in a less totalitarian method, unless you are the kind of person who still believes the war on drugs is still the best defense against rampant heroin addiction. Not to mention the other issues of prohibition which includes the complete destruction of american beer and spirit craftsmanship which is only in the past 15 years beginning to rebuild. And let's not talk about the oligopoly in the beer market that was unapologetically cemented into law after prohibition that suppressed small businesses and promoted government corruption.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I think that extremely stringent drinking laws would do Britain the world of good. It is staggering what alcohol-related problems cost our economy, indeed the extent of the problem is so wide and varied that it is almost incomprehensible - everything from the burden its puts on the NHS, to the prison system, to the welfare system, to days missed off work... not to mention the indirect effects it has on peoples' lives - broken marriages, spousal/child abuse, unwanted pregnancies, mental health, unemployment, etc. The drinking culture in Britain is shocking, you can't compare it to what you see in Souther Europe, or indeed most of the rest of the world. What is going on today is well beyond what is acceptable. Remember this gem?

I wouldn't go so far as to suggest outright prohibition, since that would be totalitarian. However, it is well within both the spirit and the tradition of those governments at Westminster that secured and protected our liberties for hundreds of years, to take very harsh measures against the production and distribution of alcohol.

The aim in such measures should be to foster a healthy drinking culture. To allow our small, traditional pubs to flourish, while slamming the big chain-pubs and the night-clubs which seem to be increasingly ubiquitous. Allow our small, traditional breweries to recover while slamming the big multinational corporations that have shut them down.

This would take a multi-pronged approach. A good start might be to:

1. Ban any company above a certain size from producing alcohol - this removes competition from local brewers, while also taking the cheapest alcohol (and thus the most problematic) off the market.
2. Ban chain pubs - same reasoning as above, these tend to be the sort of places where our binge drinking culture manifests itself, not the more quaint local establishments.
3. Ban certain alcohol imports - eg cheap foreign trash that fuels problem drinking, while allowing the connoisseur to get their French wines and German lagers. A simple rule to avoid red-tape would be to have a minimum retail price per unit - anything below it isn't allowed.
4. Subside alcohol advertisements - help the local brewers to get their name out and re-market alcohol as part of a different experience - not as something to be part of a 'night out', but as a traditional beverage to be enjoyed with a family meal.
5. Stop going overboard with the alcohol education in schools - seriously, its counter-productive. It makes it seem cool and risky and rebellious, and highlighting the dangers doesn't really counteract those points - kids see adults drinking it all the time so they know it won't kill them, at least not right away.

[Fragony]

Nothing of all that is going to help, the UK has a bigger problem, sadness. The UK is a truly depressing place. Not the countryside, but the city's. It sucks every bit of happiness out of your bones.

[Husar]

Nothing of all that is going to help, the UK has a bigger problem, sadness. The UK is a truly depressing place. Not the countryside, but the city's. It sucks every bit of happiness out of your bones.

Yes, most people drink because it's the only way they know to feel some kind of happiness and to forget their worries.

Don't just fight the symptoms.

[Fragony]

Good move to help my point across https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gMwzvAt84P8

Don't be put of by the violent sex in the first scene, movie is full of brilliant dialogues and observations.

But it's mostly very sad.

Well worth your time.

[Greyblades]

Nothing of all that is going to help, the UK has a bigger problem, sadness. The UK is a truly depressing place. Not the countryside, but the city's. It sucks every bit of happiness out of your bones.

'Pretty sure that's true of all large cities post recession.

[Viking]

Well chopping someones arms is an action not a behavior. The behavior is aggression, an extreme, the opposite extreme of which is timidity, the middle of which is something along the lines of confident.

It's not aggression, it's punishment for a transgression (stealing). The thief was the aggressor.

"We are going to disregard all ethics and study for pure knowledge! There is no evil, except standing in the path of progress!"

I don't think the concept of human progress is inherent to intellectualism.

"Everyone who is not intelligent enough should be forcibly sterilised"

Anti-Intellectualism and Intellectualism taken to an extreme (Such as advocating for the removal of stupid people) both stem from the desire to create a superior category of people (philosophically or academically or in some other abstract way) who are defined less by what they are, and more by what they are not. Its Nazism, quite frankly. The details don't matter that much.



And in my most humble and often controversial opinion, dogmatic religious zealotry often does the exact same thing. Its the original thing, if you will. That's the double-edged sword of faith. You can organize your society, you can give it morals, but you can also make them judgemental zealots who spread fear and hate of the "other". Is it a stretch to say a society organized by faith in science runs the same risks? Especially a society where the majority don't have the personal knowledge to appreciate the finer points of skepticism and acceptance?

Hmmm...

This sounds more like intellIGENCEism. Same category as racism, speciesism and so on.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I think that extremely stringent drinking laws would do Britain the world of good. It is staggering what alcohol-related problems cost our economy, indeed the extent of the problem is so wide and varied that it is almost incomprehensible - everything from the burden its puts on the NHS, to the prison system, to the welfare system, to days missed off work... not to mention the indirect effects it has on peoples' lives - broken marriages, spousal/child abuse, unwanted pregnancies, mental health, unemployment, etc. The drinking culture in Britain is shocking, you can't compare it to what you see in Souther Europe, or indeed most of the rest of the world. What is going on today is well beyond what is acceptable. Remember this gem?

I wouldn't go so far as to suggest outright prohibition, since that would be totalitarian. However, it is well within both the spirit and the tradition of those governments at Westminster that secured and protected our liberties for hundreds of years, to take very harsh measures against the production and distribution of alcohol.

The aim in such measures should be to foster a healthy drinking culture. To allow our small, traditional pubs to flourish, while slamming the big chain-pubs and the night-clubs which seem to be increasingly ubiquitous. Allow our small, traditional breweries to recover while slamming the big multinational corporations that have shut them down.

This would take a multi-pronged approach. A good start might be to:

1. Ban any company above a certain size from producing alcohol - this removes competition from local brewers, while also taking the cheapest alcohol (and thus the most problematic) off the market.
2. Ban chain pubs - same reasoning as above, these tend to be the sort of places where our binge drinking culture manifests itself, not the more quaint local establishments.
3. Ban certain alcohol imports - eg cheap foreign trash that fuels problem drinking, while allowing the connoisseur to get their French wines and German lagers. A simple rule to avoid red-tape would be to have a minimum retail price per unit - anything below it isn't allowed.
4. Subside alcohol advertisements - help the local brewers to get their name out and re-market alcohol as part of a different experience - not as something to be part of a 'night out', but as a traditional beverage to be enjoyed with a family meal.
5. Stop going overboard with the alcohol education in schools - seriously, its counter-productive. It makes it seem cool and risky and rebellious, and highlighting the dangers doesn't really counteract those points - kids see adults drinking it all the time so they know it won't kill them, at least not right away.

This too seems to go over the board with government actions. You want government to essentially pick and choose the winners of the market without actually tackling the cultural problems of binge drinking. What message is the government sending when it declares a war on binge drinking....and then proceeds to fund alcohol advertising and reduce education in schools. All you are doing is forcing the binge drinkers to go towards the local pubs and distillers/breweries which now have regional monopolies and jack up the prices for alcoholic beverages. The article you posted talked about a woman performing sexual acts on two dozen guys for a drink (presumably she did not have the money to buy one), do you think that higher prices for drinks will reduce or increase the odds of that happening more often?

If any thing more education is needed along with more subtle laws that serve to promote incentives to not drink as heavily. Another question to ask is why young people seem to think there is nothing else to do with their time other than drink.

It's not aggression, it's punishment for a transgression (stealing). The thief was the aggressor.

And you are responding back with blind aggression right back towards the thief instead of letting the due process of the law take effect. Chopping someones arms off for stealing is excessive so I don't know what point you are trying to make that undermines what I am saying.

[Husar]

'Pretty sure that's true of all large cities post recession.

In the UK maybe, in Germany the cities are not as sad.

[Beskar]

charities will be better at doing the aid than the government will be (on that they might be right... although the provision will be very patchy).

Unfortunately this is not the case, compare the systems in the US and the UK to see why. The US has nothing like the welfare system we experience over here, and it would be really unfair to judge them by the same standards. Especially in the US, government funding and taxes are significantly lower, but the 'freed' money doesn't help the poorest. Even though we don't have the best, as posters here will tell you from their own situation, it is far better than a few of the almost desperate cries which have been heard in the backroom before from poorer Americans which have gone into details about their struggles.

I remember posts screaming about the crisis and how they really struggle to hold down any jobs due to mass firing by firms and even when they got a job, they were getting absolute peanuts due to it being the 'service industry', which is half minimum wage, no 'tips', having to use your own car, fuel, with no cash to cover it. Compared to the same job here which comes with company vehicle, proper and higher minimum wage, etc. (we also have health, etc)

What is worse is when Americans complain about 'spending too much' on them, when they are really 'spending too little'.

Don't even get me started at the disgrace of a mental health system they have, which is basically throwing ill people into prisons...

I worked for many years in hospitals and have had interactions with other state organs. The concern has almost always been doing what the job requires rather than what is "right" or even "morally correct". The driving factor was a constant job. My favourite one was when we had to do a "child safety" course as GPs. The course organiser couldn't understand my point when I said that the massive number of man hours that was being expended on this (a day training annually for all GPs, trainees and nurses) for there to have been no difference in the death rate in a decade: results? What does that matter - it is the process that we have to do!

GPs and Doctors, sorry to say, but they are typically aloof (have met a couple of real passionate ones, though) and usually, it is the lower-staff which are actually doing the real work and whilst the doctor or consultant goes "yes yes.. so where am I signing so I can go on my golfing trip?". A great many courses, especially for frontline staff, such as Support Workers, Nurses, etc have had a great difference and reduction in risks, deaths and incidents (safety, CNR, BLS, AM) and these are the people are usually take the most care in looking after their patients.

Job security is utterly non-existent. I've done three jobs in two years and my company is about to be bought out and moved too far to commute - so off I go again. It is more extreme than I'd like / have planned but if nothing else I'm not complacent and very aware that the one thing I need to be is adaptable.

Yes, which is as I mentioned, private sector is very cut-throat and there is a high job turnover whilst the public sector whilst had the lower wages, you had far better job security. Though with the NHS freezing and cuts, in the space of a couple of years, I had to apply for the job, re-apply for the job when they closed down units in the local area, and I would have had to re-apply again for moving to a new hospital (which is smaller but hopefully, a significant quality upgrade.)

[Viking]

And you are responding back with blind aggression right back towards the thief instead of letting the due process of the law take effect. Chopping someones arms off for stealing is excessive so I don't know what point you are trying to make that undermines what I am saying.

The problem is how you define aggression. The process of law can be also be viewed as aggressive. And of course, the process of law could also end in the chopping of limbs if that's what the law says it should do (also, how do you define excessive?).

[a completely inoffensive name]

The problem is how you define aggression. The process of law can be also be viewed as aggressive. And of course, the process of law could also end in the chopping of limbs if that's what the law says it should do (also, how do you define excessive?).

Aggression is defined by the specific scenario in question and the possible choices. This might sound dumb Viking, but I don't like to attach rigid definitions to be applied to scenarios because that presumes:

A. That morality is simply following a logical flow chart.
B. Morality is knowledge not a skill.

In the case of catching a thief in the act. Your actions can range from letting him go in fear of what he may do (a reasonable concern, to be fair), subduing and turning him over to the police to be prosecuted by the government, an (ideally) universally agreed upon institution for judgment and punishment, or you can murder him (or do some varying degree of injury to the thief). The middle ground seems to be turning him over to be tried in accordance with the law while the other options are relative extremes (fear and aggression). By giving up the opportunity to give punishment yourself and turning him to the government, you display confidence towards the thief that he won't get away with his crime without needing to be violent (beyond what is necessary to contain him).

If the government has a punishment disproportionate to the crime (such as death penalty to all thieves), then the scenario is different and what is aggressive operates under a different context. It may very well be better to hurt the thief yourself in order to scare him away, if the other options are to let him escape unabated or sending him to certain death by the government.

I'm sorry if this makes no sense to you, but building moral laws from first principles always results in increasingly odd and counter intuitive consequences or obviously repugnant choices. It's a skill to be practiced in my opinion.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Obviously, some parts of this is clearly me half understanding Aristotle. But if I remember correctly, even Aristotle liked to make rigid definitions for behaviors like courage when he gave examples. I don't even like going that far.

[Rhyfelwyr]

This too seems to go over the board with government actions. You want government to essentially pick and choose the winners of the market without actually tackling the cultural problems of binge drinking.

There's more to it than that. The more small-scale, traditional breweries are almost marketing a different product - its physical content is the same, but as a product its image and the experience associated with it is totally different. Local brews are what posh English people drink in quaint country pubs, it is an entirely different market from that of the cheap garbage aimed at binge-drinking clubbers. It will be advertised differently, it will be sold in different establishments... it is about changing culture.

Still, pricing itself matters, and this is recognised by policy-makers. In fact there are already laws quite similar to what I advocate in the very liberal-lefty lands of Scandinavia (see Systembolaget, Alko, etc) and to a lesser extent, Scottish minimum pricing laws. In the case of Scotland, these measures have come about through a recognition of the devastation alcohol causes, not out of any sort of moralising agenda.

What message is the government sending when it declares a war on binge drinking....and then proceeds to fund alcohol advertising and reduce education in schools.

Nobody needs to declare any wars here. I suggested subsidies because we have to be proactive in changing the drinking culture. Part of that is changing the 'experience' surrounding alcohol - make it less about getting intoxicated, and more about enjoying a traditional beverege, something that gives you a taste of the local area, a taste of history, whatever.

All you are doing is forcing the binge drinkers to go towards the local pubs and distillers/breweries which now have regional monopolies and jack up the prices for alcoholic beverages.

Aye, but the behaviour surrounding binge drinking would never be tolerated in many a quiet local. Right now, the chain-pubs and clubs in town and city centres form a sort of binge-drinking complex. I know from my limited experience the clubs and pubs there work closely together, eg pubs selling discount wrist-band/tickets that get you into the club down the street. My proposals are about destroying these ties. The idea that all the young folk from my town that go up to Glasgow city centre for a night out, would suddenly descend upon the little local pubs filled with mostly fat middle-aged men is ludicrous, IMO. Drinking would lose all its glitz and glam. Like I said, its about destroying the culture.

The article you posted talked about a woman performing sexual acts on two dozen guys for a drink (presumably she did not have the money to buy one), do you think that higher prices for drinks will reduce or increase the odds of that happening more often?

She wasn't an alky, she wasn't dying for her next drink. She was a recreational drinker - the price had nothing to do with her doing what she did. The culture of drunken sensuality, loss of inhibition, peer pressure and moral looseness on the other hand, had a lot to do with it. We need to destroy that culture.

If any thing more education is needed along with more subtle laws that serve to promote incentives to not drink as heavily.

I wish I had the article to hand, but I remember reading that drug abuse amongst teenagers in the USA exploded after a rather alarmist campaign was launched to warn them of the danger of drugs. Despite the fact that drug abuse was negligible amongst teenagers, some parents had a moral panic and kickstarted a huge education campaign to warn kids to stay away from drugs. They presented this idea that all the cool kids were doing drugs, that there was massive peer pressure to take drugs, even when there wasn't. Of course, this silly campaign made kids think that if they weren't doing drugs, then they were somehow freaks and not one of the cool kids. As a consequence, drug abuse shot up.

From what I remember, I think the same thing happens with alcohol education in schools. The schools themselves are cementing alcohols reputation as something cool and rebellious. They should stick to hard facts (health risks, etc) instead of creating a self-fulfilling prophecy where alcohol is presented as being a certain way, and so they reinforce its image as being such.

Another question to ask is why young people seem to think there is nothing else to do with their time other than drink.

That's a good question but it goes well beyond the scope of this discussion.

[Fragony]

Again I refer to this movie, watch it https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gMwzvAt84P8 it's the full movie and it's legal.

The clue is behind the lines

[Greyblades]

In the UK maybe, in Germany the cities are not as sad.

Well, yeah, but the recession didnt hit you as hard as the rest of the world. We're still caught up in the after effects of the second great depression over here.

[Husar]

Well, yeah, but the recession didnt hit you as hard as the rest of the world. We're still caught up in the after effects of the second great depression over here.

Yeah, we actually have an economy that is not 95% banks and service industry.

But the point was that it's not true for all large cities like you said.
It's probably not true for Dutch and other cities either.

[a completely inoffensive name]

There's more to it than that. The more small-scale, traditional breweries are almost marketing a different product - its physical content is the same, but as a product its image and the experience associated with it is totally different. Local brews are what posh English people drink in quaint country pubs, it is an entirely different market from that of the cheap garbage aimed at binge-drinking clubbers. It will be advertised differently, it will be sold in different establishments... it is about changing culture.

Ok, but here is the thing, you are assuming that the culture of small pubs will remain unaffected by the influx of young people who now must drink in these different establishments. What is to stop small pubs from accommodating the desires of the youth who are now forced to visit small pubs?

Still, pricing itself matters, and this is recognised by policy-makers. In fact there are already laws quite similar to what I advocate in the very liberal-lefty lands of Scandinavia (see Systembolaget, Alko, etc) and to a lesser extent, Scottish minimum pricing laws. In the case of Scotland, these measures have come about through a recognition of the devastation alcohol causes, not out of any sort of moralising agenda.

Sure, but the Scottish minimum pricing law is an example of a subtle law that I would (and do) support. It doesn't have to force establishments to close or accommodate new people and yet it still promotes less drinking.

Nobody needs to declare any wars here. I suggested subsidies because we have to be proactive in changing the drinking culture. Part of that is changing the 'experience' surrounding alcohol - make it less about getting intoxicated, and more about enjoying a traditional beverege, something that gives you a taste of the local area, a taste of history, whatever.

I agree in being proactive, but the fact remains that under this type of policy, there will be clear winners and clear losers, no? It all seems to reek of social engineering (which is not inherently bad in itself) with a large capacity for exploitation and corruption.

Aye, but the behaviour surrounding binge drinking would never be tolerated in many a quiet local. Right now, the chain-pubs and clubs in town and city centres form a sort of binge-drinking complex. I know from my limited experience the clubs and pubs there work closely together, eg pubs selling discount wrist-band/tickets that get you into the club down the street. My proposals are about destroying these ties. The idea that all the young folk from my town that go up to Glasgow city centre for a night out, would suddenly descend upon the little local pubs filled with mostly fat middle-aged men is ludicrous, IMO. Drinking would lose all its glitz and glam. Like I said, its about destroying the culture.

And there is the assumption I have been trying to point out. Perhaps this is just a part of UK culture that I have no idea about it, but to me, I would think that small pub owners would tolerate anything as long as they make a healthy profit off of it. If they are competing with other small pubs over this influx of young people, they may just as well re brand themselves and kick out the fat, middle aged men. Who is to say that small pubs won't encourage binge drinking once they get a taste of the revenue it generates?

She wasn't an alky, she wasn't dying for her next drink. She was a recreational drinker - the price had nothing to do with her doing what she did. The culture of drunken sensuality, loss of inhibition, peer pressure and moral looseness on the other hand, had a lot to do with it. We need to destroy that culture.

To an extent. But my feeling is that these policies are still intrusive and still only make superficial treatments to the symptoms not the cause. I think the culture is what creates chain pubs and clubs, not the other way around.

I wish I had the article to hand, but I remember reading that drug abuse amongst teenagers in the USA exploded after a rather alarmist campaign was launched to warn them of the danger of drugs. Despite the fact that drug abuse was negligible amongst teenagers, some parents had a moral panic and kickstarted a huge education campaign to warn kids to stay away from drugs. They presented this idea that all the cool kids were doing drugs, that there was massive peer pressure to take drugs, even when there wasn't. Of course, this silly campaign made kids think that if they weren't doing drugs, then they were somehow freaks and not one of the cool kids. As a consequence, drug abuse shot up.

From what I remember, I think the same thing happens with alcohol education in schools. The schools themselves are cementing alcohols reputation as something cool and rebellious. They should stick to hard facts (health risks, etc) instead of creating a self-fulfilling prophecy where alcohol is presented as being a certain way, and so they reinforce its image as being such.

I think you may have been reading about D.A.R.E. which was part of the curriculum when I was in middle school (it is now discontinued in many areas because of its massive failure). Personally, I do not think the increase use of drugs went exactly as you described it. The DARE program was a failure because it was the exact opposite of education. It was lies and propaganda. I still remember the videos today of the cartoon kid getting "addicted" to the "gateway drug" marijuana and moving on to cocaine and heroin. It tried to present the laughable case that marijuana as a Schedule I drug was just as dangerous as all other Schedule I drugs.

Students will experiment, its just how kids are. When you have figures of authority tell you that marijuana will get you addicted on the first puff and immediately cause permanent brain damage, you now have kids losing all trust in authority since they get high for the first time, enjoy it and 30 minutes later realize that they are completely fine. The dangers of drug use (almost) always stem from habitual usage and constant exposure, not singular events. The real danger of DARE is that once you find out that they lied about pot, some students take it once step further and think that the really dangerous drugs must have also been exaggerated.

To this day, I cannot recall when any movement has been made to give young people accurate and scientific data regarding drug use. It's all fear mongering and spin, which only works on people for a time.

That's a good question but it goes well beyond the scope of this discussion.

For another time then.

[HoreTore]

Vinmonopolet and Systembolaget are wonderful institutions to both the teetotaler and the drunkard.

Sure, it limits the availability and it jacks up the price, but that's all worth it for the wonderful selection it provides.

As a happy drunk, I dread the day I can buy wine at the grocery store.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Ok, but here is the thing, you are assuming that the culture of small pubs will remain unaffected by the influx of young people who now must drink in these different establishments. What is to stop small pubs from accommodating the desires of the youth who are now forced to visit small pubs?

... And there is the assumption I have been trying to point out. Perhaps this is just a part of UK culture that I have no idea about it, but to me, I would think that small pub owners would tolerate anything as long as they make a healthy profit off of it. If they are competing with other small pubs over this influx of young people, they may just as well re brand themselves and kick out the fat, middle aged men. Who is to say that small pubs won't encourage binge drinking once they get a taste of the revenue it generates?

I think what you are saying here will happen to some extent, but the present binge drinking culture you see in the chain-pubs and nightclubs of the city centres will never be replicated in the same way in smaller, local establishments. I think you are making a mistake in viewing binge drinkers as being primarily attracted to the drink, in and of itself. I think its more about the glitz and glam of the clubs, the dancing, the open fornication, the social status of going to 'cool' clubs, the media portrayal of going to such places as being the 'done thing'. And of course the cheap booze.

All of those things would be lost overnight under my proposals. I don't think the binge drinking culture could survive without that environment. Binge drinkers won't be attracted to small, traditional pubs without all those things, regardless of whether or not such pubs would try to cater for them.

Sure, but the Scottish minimum pricing law is an example of a subtle law that I would (and do) support. It doesn't have to force establishments to close or accommodate new people and yet it still promotes less drinking.

Of course, I suppose it is a sort of minor version of what I am proposing. I think it will have limited success, however it won't be ground-breaking because it only tackles one piece of the puzzle.

I agree in being proactive, but the fact remains that under this type of policy, there will be clear winners and clear losers, no? It all seems to reek of social engineering (which is not inherently bad in itself) with a large capacity for exploitation and corruption.

There are clear winners and losers right now - the winners are the multinational corporations, and the losers are the NHS, the welfare system, the prison system, the education system, the taxpayer, rape victims, victims of violence, society in general, etc.

I also think that the case of the monopolies in Scandinavia shows that we can have tight regulations without also having significant corruption.

To an extent. But my feeling is that these policies are still intrusive and still only make superficial treatments to the symptoms not the cause. I think the culture is what creates chain pubs and clubs, not the other way around.

The chain-pubs and the clubs are the very root of the drinking culture. Nightclubs are not some sort of organic development which happens when a bunch of people partying in a field conclude that the logical next step is to make a permanent building to house their activities. When a nightclub sets up in a town, it brings the binge drinking culture with it because it fosters the conditions that allow it to take place. There's nothing superficial about removing the clubs.

I think you may have been reading about D.A.R.E. which was part of the curriculum when I was in middle school (it is now discontinued in many areas because of its massive failure). Personally, I do not think the increase use of drugs went exactly as you described it. The DARE program was a failure because it was the exact opposite of education. It was lies and propaganda. I still remember the videos today of the cartoon kid getting "addicted" to the "gateway drug" marijuana and moving on to cocaine and heroin. It tried to present the laughable case that marijuana as a Schedule I drug was just as dangerous as all other Schedule I drugs.

Students will experiment, its just how kids are. When you have figures of authority tell you that marijuana will get you addicted on the first puff and immediately cause permanent brain damage, you now have kids losing all trust in authority since they get high for the first time, enjoy it and 30 minutes later realize that they are completely fine. The dangers of drug use (almost) always stem from habitual usage and constant exposure, not singular events. The real danger of DARE is that once you find out that they lied about pot, some students take it once step further and think that the really dangerous drugs must have also been exaggerated.

To this day, I cannot recall when any movement has been made to give young people accurate and scientific data regarding drug use. It's all fear mongering and spin, which only works on people for a time.

That may well have been it. I think schools should calm down and take a more measured approach to drugs and alcohol. Stick to the honest facts when it comes to the health and social problems they cause, and don't overplay the extent of the problem because of a moral panic.

Heh, this topic reminds me of a video we watched at school. It was about the danger of AIDS, and had three characters - one who injected drugs, one who had unprotected sex, and one who stayed away from these things. At the end you had to guess who got AIDS... turned out the ones doing drugs and unprotected sex were fine, but the poor straight-laced guy poked his finger on a needle in a bin and got infected. Seemed like a totally counter-productive message to me, I think the producers were trying to be a bit smart for their own good.

I think we just need to chill and stop presenting the world as a terrible and dangerous place. We should be trying to give kids faith in society, not traumatise them towards it.

[HoreTore]

I'm not responsible for teaching morality to your brats.

My job is to teach your brats that what they learn at home is wrong.

Take some damn responsibility, parents, raising your kids is your job.

[HopAlongBunny]

Well the Brits have been turning to drink for a long time. One could make the case that it is a tradition they are famous for:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_world...ve_affair.html

[Viking]

This might sound dumb Viking, but I don't like to attach rigid definitions to be applied to scenarios because that presumes:

A. That morality is simply following a logical flow chart.
B. Morality is knowledge not a skill.

That skill and knowledge (or logic) should be separate things strike me as a false dichotomy. Think of craftsmanship: we can program a robot to recreate even the finest work made by hand. The robot does this by following purely logical routines.

(and of course, whether something sounds dumb is ultimately irrelevant )

I'm sorry if this makes no sense to you, but building moral laws from first principles always results in increasingly odd and counter intuitive consequences or obviously repugnant choices. It's a skill to be practiced in my opinion.

If you encounter repugnant choices, then presumably something is incorrect about your moral theory (as far as this is something undesired).

[a completely inoffensive name]

That skill and knowledge (or logic) should be separate things strike me as a false dichotomy. Think of craftsmanship: we can program a robot to recreate even the finest work made by hand. The robot does this by following purely logical routines.

True, it is a false dichotomy. However, the difference between a robot and a human is that a human can know what the right thing is and still not do it. There are plenty of people who have known since they were kids what is right and what is wrong and they still go off and do terrible things, murder, theft, bringing down the world economy through fraudulently rated, high risk, mortgage bundles. The robot has no choice but to make the work of art, while the human does. That's why I view morality through behaviors and not if they hold themselves to a logical code.

(and of course, whether something sounds dumb is ultimately irrelevant )

:D

If you encounter repugnant choices, then presumably something is incorrect about your moral theory (as far as this is something undesired).

Can you think of any modern theory (enlightenment until today) that doesn't lead to any repugnant choices?

[a completely inoffensive name]

I think we just need to chill and stop presenting the world as a terrible and dangerous place. We should be trying to give kids faith in society, not traumatise them towards it.

I agree with this statement 100%. And I think I will reconsider some of the suggestions you have made. It's now seems convincing to me.

[Viking]

That's why I view morality through behaviors and not if they hold themselves to a logical code.

I don't see what this has to do with logical codes specifically.

Can you think of any modern theory (enlightenment until today) that doesn't lead to any repugnant choices?

Maybe the choices are not repugnant to the author of the theory, or maybe they convinced themselves that the repugnant quality was an illusion they needed to overcome.

Maybe the the most popular theories are the simplest ones and therefore are more likely to lead to repugnant choices, as they lack the more complex design a functional moral theory requires.