Heard about a new drug on the market that gives you the euphoria of ecstacy and the arrogance of cocaine... thought i might try some... no, but in all seriousness, it seemed the reporter felt compelled to list the side effects (I guess to discourage ppl from using it)

This got me thinking, if we could create a halluconegenic drug that had absolutely no side effects (apart from making you feel euphoric and taking you out of reality) would it be ethical for an individual to consume it? And would it be ethical to allow it within a society?

The drug question is less of an ethical dilemma when we know there are serious side effects, heroine for example, usually kills most of its users. That's a pretty serious side effect. But I think a greater ethical dilemma is presented when there are no side effects.

What are your thoughts?

Impossible to have such a drug, there will always be side effects.

No need for any drugs. I can get euphoric smelling freshly laundered clothes in the sun. But then I'm a freak, my drug of choice is that good old fashioned opium of the people; religion!

But, Christine, that drug has vast side effects

If there were such a drug, that gave users the most incredible feelings of euphoria that had no serious side effects, then the majority of people would become consumers. Ultimately, this would (in lots of cases) lead to addiction and an increased demand for the drug. The increase in demand may mean that the supply could not be kept up & therefore in order to keep the supply up, the drug may not keep the same chemical make-up - quite the same as the large variants in the ingredients of the drug ecstacy, for example. This aside, addiction is my point. It is the worst possible side effect - addiction leads to many evils, especially if the supply runs low. There is no ethical dilemma here, addiction is a very serious side effect & is the main cause of the majority of drug related problems. It is rather inane to assume that such a drug, would come with no consequences.

Not if you follow the labelling instructions correctly.

Side effects are effects and part of the overall package. Religion has many effects, and the main effects of religion are meant to be tolerance, love, understanding etc. Some other indirect effects include power over others, which was too often abused. But that is more to do with people's inhumanity to man than religion in my book. Religion isn't for me because I have no faith, but religion overall has been for the benefit of people. OK, there has been some terriible abuses in the name of religion, but that is not religion, that is people being not following the labelling instructions.

To consider the implications of such a wonder drug it is helpful to put aside the implied negative connotations of "side effects" and simply ask, does the drug make life better? - for the person, for others etc. If the answer is yes, then the use of a wonder drug is ethical.

As for the impact of such a drug upon reality, what is reality? If in terrible pain, and a drug can remove that reality and put one in a place of unreality where everything is calm and peaceful and feels good, I reckon the use of that drug is ethical, reality or unreality not withstanding.

Is this new drug covered under our health insurance?

Kell3 wrote:

If there were such a drug, that gave users the most incredible feelings of euphoria that had no serious side effects, then the majority of people would become consumers.

Hummmn. Can you justify or provide supporting information for this statement please.

Is there an assumption here that the reason that, say, taking heroin is unethical solely because of the unwanted side effects (addiction, habituation, possibility of fatal overdose)?

If the effect of a drug is to “take you out of reality”, does that not itself raise ethical issues? Most ethical traditions value truth, and the search for truth, and assert that the real has a meaning and significance which the imaginary and illusory does not. We are real creatures; that which cuts me off from reality cuts me off from myself. Is that strictly ethical?

Consider alcohol. While it does have potential side effects, it is possible to enjoy alohol, including its mind-altering properties, in a way which minimises or avoids the harmful consequences of those side effects. If, in my own home, I have a glass of wine with dinner and feel fairly mellow as a result, few people would see any problem. But if I drink to insensibility every night then, even if I am blessed with a constitution which enables me to turn up for work every morning bright and fresh, I think people would say that there is an ethical issue. This behaviour is damaging to me.

So a drug which “takes you out of reality” is not ethically neutral. There may well be conditions within which its ethically bad effects are minimised, and there may be countervailing benefits, as with the glass of wine at dinner. But the drug always has the capacity to diminish me.

arry wrote:

... taking you out of reality) would it be ethical for an individual to consume it? And would it be ethical to allow it within a society?

Can you assist me with defining reality please.

If one is sleeping / meditating / has their eyes closed / deaf / unconcious / gone to heaven (or hell!) / unaware of what happened next door / playing a virtual game ..... is that person in reality?

Very interesting question. I would say no, they are not in reality. Would you agree?

I'm not certain ... my quick response is that it is not possible to be aware of everything everywhere every time so a person can only ever be partially aware. If one doesn't perceive or know something, then it isn't real to that person.

To be subject to the one real everywhere reality (I am assuming only one reality in this statement) one must be aware of everything everywhere and every time or one might miss something and perceive something incorrectly, and therefore not be in the real unique reality. Isn't the unique characteristic of God, being omniaware?

As this is not possible, each of us must perceive a different reality or alternatively we each perceive the one unique reality differently.

Therefore, there is one unperceivable reality or many unique realities - a single absolute reality or many different relative shades of reality.

If there are many realities, then is each reality related to a different ethical level? If my reality is different to yours, does this necessarily mean our ethics are different? Perhaps if one is more aware of the outcomes of a decision one can make more ethical decisions, or are there so many variables that it is negligible. To forecast outcomes - to forecast the future - is so far beyond our capability that being any increased or decreased awareness and hence reality is negligible?

All a drug (sleeping / meditating etc) does is change our perception of reality. What are the ethical implications of having a different perception of reality or if there is only one reality, of being closer or further away from the one true reality.

I can't see a strong link between the proposed wonder drug (or sleeping, meditating etc) changing one's perception of reality and one being more or less ethical unless that wonder drug changes our perception of the likely outcome of our actions. If one is very very happy, does that mean one sees the outcome of our actions in a more positive way? Hummmn.