Ethical Question

Perhaps the question below will seem shallow - perhaps not. I wanted to ask it to help me better understand objectivist ethics. As a former Christian living in a small town there would be a definite way to handle this situation but since I have rejected Christian ethics in favor of objectivist ethics the way to handle it changes.

Background: Currently, I am working out an entire system of values - creating a system based upon Kelly's outline in "TLSO." In his book he shows the base values as material with a sub-value of health. Under this value I have created a sub-value called personal grooming with a sub-value called "hair care."

Now you may be asking "What in the world does this have to do with ethics?" Well, the last few times that I have been into the barber shop I have smelled alcohol on the breath of my barber. I have let this slide, however, it is a little troubling to know that the person wielding sharp objects may not be entirely sober. This, however, is not the real meat of the issue. After speaking of this issue to my wife, she mentioned this to a friend. This friend responded with shock that I was still getting my hair cut at this particular barber. It seems that this individual had been caught trafficking drugs.

Side note: At one time there were two women who were in this business together [the barber business.] The one woman moved to Arizona the other stayed in town and opened a new shop. This woman worked for the one who moved - I was always proud of her for attempting to go it alone. This was one reason for continuing business with her.

Now this friend made mention that both had been caught and one got out of the business and left – the other stayed. Since I have only received this information second, third, fourth hand I have no way of knowing if she is still involved in this type of activity or not. My guess is that she must not be – I am not sure how she could continue running a business with the eye of the small town community bearing down on her.

OK- here's the question: As a former Christian, the “ethical” thing to do would be to simply avoid the situation – in fact the person my wife talked to is a Christian and I believe that this may be where her shock comes from. I can hear the statement being made “Don't you know that you are supporting a known drug dealer?!” Or the reverse takes place. “You should continue to go and attempt to win her soul to Jesus.” Since I have rejected such an ethical code would the appropriate thing to do be to find a way to ask and verify this information?

Example: This barber has known that I was studying for the ministry. I may be able to break the ice by saying “Do you think we could speak candidly for a moment... You know I was at one time studying for the ministry but have since become an atheist... in fact I have rejected Christianity in favor of objectivism ...” Once the ice is broken then perhaps she would be willing to discuss some of these things. She would not feel that I am proselytizing etc – in fact I could turn this around to express the virtue of the trader principle.

You may be asking “Why not find another barber?” If any of you are like me – I have a difficult time in allowing just anyone to cut my hair. I like the way she cuts my hair and I really don't want to find a new barber. I enjoy helping her business – we are both trading values and I enjoy helping her obtain her value.

However, there is another issue that is probably a little more disconcerting. Her shop is not kept real clean so I am wondering just how clean some of those items are that are used in her business - such as razors. I could be putting my own health at risk by continuing trading values with her.

Anyway just thought I would bring this up and see what kind of responses I get.

CADman904

Post 1

Tuesday, March 23, 2004 - 5:50pm

Tim, that's an interesting question. I think the drug dealing may be beside the point. Is it immoral to subvert immoral laws? Only if you put yourself in undue risk, but I think if someone is willing to take that risk it's up to them and don't require boycotting. So then the question just becomes, is your good reliable haircut worth the risk of a snipped off ear or some infection from a razor? I think that's something that just requires a value judgement, and is hard to answer generally.

Post 2

Wednesday, March 24, 2004 - 2:39am

Jeff:
"Is it immoral to subvert immoral laws?"

Tim:
This is an interesting question. Could you please help me understand the thought process here. I do not see this as an endorsement of drugs but the usage of legislation to limit freedom. A person needs to be free to pursue their own values - even destructive ones.

As a former Christian, the reason for not dealing drugs would be due to the "fact" that the body is a temple and one should not pollute the temple of God with such things [Be it corporate or individual.] Or one should not subvert one's mind with mind-altering agents.

If I were to attempt to answer the drug question without the use of God [and apart from an objective view] then the drug question may be what is bad for society is bad for me. So society has replaced God in this view. Since drugs are bad for society we will pass laws prohibiting this behavior.

As you say - the drug dealing is beside the point. What I need to do is make a value call. If I want to "save" this value then I must make some kind of an attempt at confrontation - I do not wish to be enslaved by gossip.

I am sure there must be some articles on this site that deal with this type of activity? I will spend some time hunting this site and some others.

Thanks Jeff

Post 3

Wednesday, March 24, 2004 - 10:45am

Tim,

Well, Objectivism would hold that the abuse of drugs is immoral (by definition.) But what counts as a drug and what counts as abuse? Asprin is a mind altering drug - it takes your headaches away. Drugs are just a tool that can be used for good or ill like any tool, and for the government to seize a persona property and lock them up and destroy their life for the mere possession of certain prohibited plant extracts is an abominable act of tyranny. It is certainly an initiation of force and a violation of rights.

To take a simpler case, alcohol is a drug that is mind altering, can be abused, and can even destroy peoples lives, and maybe you could even say that it makes society work. Does that mean prohibition was a good idea? Certainly not. And while we may have the odd teetotaler on SoloHQ (we all know who he is), I think most people here would say that alcohol is an important part to living the good life. We had a big thread on the glory of Martini's at one point on the email list, and don't you dare get Linz started on red wine.

When a government is being oppressive and totalitarian in one aspect, while being mostly free in other aspects, it's probably usually not the best idea to go against it. But I think to to some degree, if someone can thwart the machinery of oppression to some small extent and get away with it, good for them!

Post 4

Wednesday, March 31, 2004 - 5:50pm

Here's my take on it:

1) You don't have to judge a situation where the outcome has little bearing on your life. The purpose of judgement is to help you interpret reality for your own benefit.

2) However, if the person is a friend of yours, and you see an avenue to help her for this reason, then you should take it. But it's difficult for me to see how a drug user can be positively affected by the 'mention' of a problem.

I think I would ignore the problem in as far as it's no threat to you, unless you can see a positive outcome somehow.

Sincerely,

Craig Haynie (Houston)

Post 5

Friday, April 16, 2004 - 9:20pm