Limits of Ethical Relativism (was Polyrelationships) 26.Jan.1995
> Every child, even in the affluent suburbs, is offered the
opportunity > for free drugs at an appalingly young age. *If
they accept this minor > bribe, they then get the opportunity,
in pretty short order, to have > a "career" as a drug dealer.
*But, even that step is not universally > taken, even by
addicts. I'll just take quick issue with this. *Every child
*isn't* offered the opportunity. *Very few are - usually the
tremendously unpopular kids, or the tremendously popular kids.
*Simply because they stand out. > I haven't seen any compelling
evidence that the reasons for why the > inner city kids tend to
pick the "drug industry" more often than the > suburbanites has
anything whatever to do with sexual practices and has > a lot
more to do with the perception of alternative opportunity enough
> to cause a delay of immediate gratification that drugs give. I
can't speak for the inner city, but I can speak (somewhat) for
the middle-suburban and the upper-suburban kids. *[through
experience, though, and not through questionaires, telephone
surveys and university studies]. Some of my friends around town,
and neighboring towns, who are teenagers, have dabbled in drug
use. *Usually just pot - rarely anything more serious. *A couple
of them have a little "business" - taking the train to the city
(New York City - I'm in New Jersey), and buying, let's say, $50
worth of pot, and reselling it for a slightly higher price for
friends. It's not a big business for these kids. *It is more a
suppliment to their allowance (or their only income, as some of
these parents stopped giving allowances in hopes of their kids
getting jobs. *Instead of getting a standard job, though, they
relied on "entepreneurial skills") Will they be selling this
stuff after they go to college? *Unlikely. They seem to enjoy
the release pot gives to them - the thrill of doing something
that they're not supposed to do - and all of that. Now, I'm
speaking for Roselle Park (my town), where, drug-wise, pot is
king. *In the nearby town of Westfield, which is more affluent
and the kids are more stifled, typically, by parents "who know
what's best", the kids that use drugs seem to be more into
cocaine, acid, and heroin - more expensive, more powerful, and
more of a release. But its still the case - most kids aren't
habitual drug users. *But given the opportunity, most will
probably dabble in it, at least around here. > As a parent, I
have spent more than a little time preparing my children > for
_exactly_ the moment you think is so hypothetical. *There is
nothing > whatever hypothetical about it. *The only difference
is the percentage > who succumb to the con. True - the
opportunity isn't presented to all or even most kids, to deal
drugs. *Those that do (at least in the New Jersey suburban
communities that I'm aware of) probably won't make it a
$1000/week business, but rather a "service" for their friends,
to save up for a car, for college, to move away from home. And
its not a bad reflection on parents when your teenagers dabble
in drug-use or drinking. *Personally, I'd rather see a teen
drink in the basement of a friend's house, than break windows,
vandalize, light off cars in an junk yard, burn houses. And for
parents that are wondering - teenagers as a whole [speaking for
all of the ones I know, in this area of the USA] ARE responsible
drinkers, especially when it comes to having a non-drinking
buddy drive everyone home. *And most, except for the addictive
personalities, learn how to time their drinking, usually after
merely *one* awful experience with drinking! > And, large
percentages (at least as large as society as a whole) of > those
in our prisons had a very conventional Christian upbringing,
with > no UU shilly-shallying about whether morality was
relative or absolute. > So, if being told that there is an
absolute morality is so important, > then one has to explain the
religious background of the average > prisoner being no more
"liberal" than society at large. That's a darned good question -
I'm certainly not qualified to even 'suppose' right now! > This
is not really to brag, but to suggest that those who > are given
simple, "absolute" answers may find themselves reacting >
all-too automatically in stress (e.g. "an eye for an eye"). >
Whether he swings his fists or not, > I hope my son thinks it
through in comparable circumstances. If your deeds towards your
son and in your life, are anything akin to your words on this
newsgroup, then I think your son will turn out just fine.
-- Kenneth Udut * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*
[email protected] Listowner of
[email protected] -
discussion on the rights of kids/teens Usenet:
soc.religions.unitarian-univ Topic: Limits of ethical relativism
(was: Polyrelationships) [via
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/soc.religion.unitarian-univ/W31LuscsFBA/ufkCU_51ihEJ
]
