• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Does intoxication grant unaccountability? (an extensive ethical theory)

Magic Poriferan

^He pronks, too!
Joined
Nov 4, 2007
Messages
14,081
MBTI Type
Yin
Enneagram
One
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
My answer to the question of this topic would be a resounding no.

What I am referring to is the concept that being under the influence of alcohol (though this probably applies to other drugs, logically speaking) partially reduces or completely removes ones accountability for their actions.

I have heard this theory thrown around quite often. People argue that they or someone else should be cut slack simply because they were drunk at the time they did something. I have a friend who at least partially believes in this theory.

But what's really the most amazing example of the theory is this: One time, a piss drunk guy in a bar tried to stab my ENTJ friend in the neck with a knife. He raised his hand in time to get stabbed in the hand instead of the neck, but that still sucks. Well, this turned into a small court case, and the assailant basically attempted murder, by trying to stab my friend in the neck. But his charges were watered way down, to the point that he was treated like a man that crashed into telephone poll while drunk. He was treated as someone that risked committing manslaughter, not some that attempted murder. The reasoning behind this, was that he was so drunk at the time, that he could not be found fully accountable for his actions. Imagine that! Getting drunk actually makes you less guilty of things!

I find this notion threateningly irresponsible, and I find it both ethically and logically unsound. I will put forward what I consider five fundamental qualifiers for accountability. The first four are all basic pillars of accountability, and so you are more accountable for each one that is true in your situation. The fifth one is a special rule about presumption. This is a lengthy description of ethical principles, so you be prepared. Here they are:

Was it in your power to unilaterally avert the particular action/event and its consequences? If yes, you are more accountable.

This is the most basic and obvious rule of accountability.

Were there plausible alternatives to your course of action that would have resulted in less detriment than the course you chose? If yes, you are more accountable.

This is to account for a situation where, as an extreme example, someone was threatening to kill you if you didn't follow orders. You might do something bad, but we can all cut you a little slack if your plausible alternatives were even worse. But, if you could have very likely done something not as bad as what you chose to do, you are more accountable.

Did you have sufficient knowledge of the nature of your actions and what their consequences might be? If yes, you are more accountable.

The classic case of pleading ignorance. Sometimes in law, ignorance cannot be an excuse, but in most ethical philosophy it is. If you were not aware of what you were doing, then there is not sufficient grounds to assume that you had sinister intent, and you may be a perfectly good and useful person who just needs a little education. But if you did have knowledge of consequences, you are guilty, because you acted with intent to do something even as you acknowledged the harm it would do. You chose to do wrong.

Did you have sufficient knowledge of better and easier alternatives to your course of action? If yes, you are more accountable.

Sort of a counter-part to the second question, and a little modifier for the third. Maybe you chose to do something with knowledge of the ways in which your actions were wrong, but you only did it because you were not aware of better plausible alternatives. In the other words, this is like believing that someone would kill you if you didn't follow orders, when in fact, nobody would. If you were misinformed about this, then you get some slack for the same reasons as the previous rule. If you weren't, then you are guilty, are for the same reasons as the previous rule.

So those are the four basic pillars. and if you can say yes to all of them, you are 100% accountable. But there is then the fifth rule, which addresses the third and fourth rules.

Do others have the right to presume your knowledge?

In other words, if you try to cite the third and fourth rules to say "I didn't know, have mercy!", I will check to see if I have the right to presume your knowledge. If I have grounds to presume that you should have known, the ignorance defense is severely weakened, as it increases the likelihood that you are a liar or someone that ignores important information, and both make you more guilty in some way.


So, having given my lengthy breakdown of what I believe are the basics of accountability, I will argue that in the vast majority of cases (though there are exception to all of my following rules) people are completely accountable for their actions when intoxicated.

Rule 1: A person could have avoided getting drunk by simply declining to drink. Had they not been drunk in the first place, they would not have done the stupid, harmful things that they do while drunk.

Rule 2: It doesn't really cost anything to not drink. It's easier in every way, less costly in every sense. So, in other words, there were better plausible alternatives to getting drunk.

For rules 3 and 4, I cite rule 5. You damn well should know what the consequences are of getting drunk, and that there are safer, easy alternatives. This is especially true if you have already been drunk in the past. You have experienced it first hand, and you should not only know the effect it has on most all people, but you should be aware of the specific way that it makes you behave. Therefore, if you have ever been drunk, I have the right to presume your knowledge, and so discount and possible use of rules 3 and 4 as a defense.

So it follows, that the person who does something wrong as a result of being drunk, is only drunk because they voluntarily chose to become drunk, in spite of safer easy alternatives, and they did so with full knowledge of what might potentially or even probably happen if they get drunk.

They are 100% accountable for all their actions that result from intoxication.
__________________________________________

So, I'd like to thank anyone that bothers to read through that whole thing. I hope you found my elaboration on accountability interesting.

I've made my case about the accountability of the intoxicated, so if you believe you have a counter argument, I would love to hear it. :)
 

Jack Flak

Permabanned
Joined
Jul 17, 2008
Messages
9,098
MBTI Type
type
Here's the way I see the case. He should be accountable for what he did, which seems to be assault with a deadly weapon. Murder sober is murder drunk, but attempted murder sober is much worse than attempted murder drunk.
 

Jeffster

veteran attention whore
Joined
Jun 7, 2008
Messages
6,743
MBTI Type
ESFP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sx
No. When you get intoxicated, you make yourself into a deadly weapon. I think if you kill someone driving drunk, you should get life in prison. No second chance. Nothing pisses me off more than murderers going free because of the intoxication excuse.
 

Magic Poriferan

^He pronks, too!
Joined
Nov 4, 2007
Messages
14,081
MBTI Type
Yin
Enneagram
One
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Here's the way I see the case. He should be accountable for what he did, which seems to be assault with a deadly weapon. Murder sober is murder drunk, but attempted murder sober is much worse than attempted murder drunk.

I suppose this is based on the idea that a person's character is worse if they would attempt murder in a fully lucid state? If so, I can understand what you are getting at. However, as you say, he should be tried for what he did. Should there be any difference in sentencing based on whether he was or wasn't drunk?

My opinion is that the situation shows the man is violent and unpredictable when druink. The fact that he is not necessarily so when sober doesn't give me much solace. It's because the guy apparently likes to drink, and will probably be drinking again many more times in his laugh, so he will return to that killer state of mind again and again. The fact that needs to be drunk to be a murderer merely adds one extra step to the process, and it's a step he's very likely to take.

EDIT: And aside from all this attempted murder stuff, let's remember that I am trying to apply my reasoning even to much more petty acts committed while drunk. There might be more willingness to debate that.
 

prplchknz

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 11, 2007
Messages
34,397
MBTI Type
yupp
I'm less likely to kill someone drunk than sober. If I'm boiling mad, it's usually when I'm sober but after a few drinks nothing bothers me. Sure I'm probably repressing, but the point is if I really don't like you and we have to hang out, it's probably to your advantage to get me drunk.

so no I don't think intoxication can be used as an excuse,
 

Giggly

No moss growing on me
Joined
Jun 12, 2008
Messages
9,661
MBTI Type
iSFj
Enneagram
2
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
No, of course not, but suppose if someone else had gotten him drunk without his knowledge or even drugged him without his knowledge and he did the same thing? Does that change your opinion?
 

prplchknz

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 11, 2007
Messages
34,397
MBTI Type
yupp
i can some what see the getting drugged part, but being drunk part? was someone pouring vodka down his throat while asleep?
 

Magic Poriferan

^He pronks, too!
Joined
Nov 4, 2007
Messages
14,081
MBTI Type
Yin
Enneagram
One
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
No, of course not, but suppose if someone else had gotten him drunk without his knowledge or even drugged him without his knowledge and he did the same thing? Does that change your opinion?

It would not be the same thing, because the person does not technically qualify for the third rule. If they are being secretly intoxicated, then they do not realize that they are drinking alcohol in whatever it is they are drinking, so they do not posess sufficient knowledge for accountability.

That being said, I don't imagine this happens often. How could someone not notice the alcohol if they were drinking enough to be substantially drunk? Never the less, I did note that there were rare exceptions to each of assertions about getting drunk.
 

Martoon

perdu fleur par bologne
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
1,361
MBTI Type
INTP
Yeah, this issue has always bugged me. Not just acts of physical injury, but even saying/doing obnoxious things when drunk. It just seems absurdly silly to me that anyone should be any less accountable for anything when intoxicated (unless, as mentioned, they were somehow intoxicated without their knowledge and/or consent). If you do things, when drunk, that come at a cost to other people - then you don't get to drink. It's just stupid to think that I could willfully get myself into a state that makes me more inclined to do something, then do it, and that somehow gets me off the hook. If I wanted to run you down in my car, could I drain my brake fluid, lock my steering wheel, then get a run at you? "But Your Honor, I couldn't stop. I had just drained my brake fluid." (And yes, I know that's not a proper analogy, unless someone got drunk with the specific intent of using it as a defense for a premeditated act. But it still illustrates my point about the responsibility dependency chain.)

Though prplchknz brings up an interesting point:
I'm less likely to kill someone drunk than sober. If I'm boiling mad, it's usually when I'm sober but after a few drinks nothing bothers me.
If someone were less inclined to do damaging things when drunk, would they have a responsibility to stay drunk? ;)
 

Magic Poriferan

^He pronks, too!
Joined
Nov 4, 2007
Messages
14,081
MBTI Type
Yin
Enneagram
One
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Though prplchknz brings up an interesting point:

If someone were less inclined to do damaging things when drunk, would they have a responsibility to stay drunk? ;)

That requires meticulous cost-benefit analysis. You're going to have crunch all kinds of details to figure out if it less destructive overall for the person to be constantly drunk than it would be for the person to be sober. This also requires you to determine whether or not there are less destructive alternatives to being drunk that are just as effective at removing the person's damaging behavior.
 

Martoon

perdu fleur par bologne
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
1,361
MBTI Type
INTP
That requires meticulous cost-benefit analysis. You're going to have crunch all kinds of details to figure out if it less destructive overall for the person to be constantly drunk than it would be for the person to be sober. This also requires you to determine whether or not there are less destructive alternatives to being drunk that are just as effective at removing the person's damaging behavior.
Oh, I agree, absolutely. I was being silly (but I'm sure you knew that).


Not to derail your thread (he says as he derails it), but since you're Mr. Rigorous Logic Dude, what are your thoughts on punishments being determined more by outcomes than by behavior and intent? e.g.: Guy gets a little drunk and runs a stop sign. A cop witnesses it. So the guy loses his license for a couple months, or whatever. But if a school bus happens to be going through the intersection when he runs the stop sign, and several children are killed, he's put away for a long time. The only difference being that he got lucky in the first example, and unlucky in the second (but his intentions and behavior were identical). Is it appropriate to radically alter the severity of a punishment based on factors outside the control of the violator?
 

GZA

Resident Snot-Nose
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
1,771
MBTI Type
infp
In every day conversation/life, the whole "I was drunk" thing with your friends is more like a "I'm sorry, I was being fucking stupid, but you understand what it's like" and move on type thing. Depending on what it is you do, you may need more apology... the end goal is that you and the other guy understand eachother, that he would never want to do it but that it seemed smart at the time or whatever, blah blah blah. Still acountable, but give him a break.


But law... like with everything in law, it depends. I believe they are accountable, but I realize that it does not always reflect on character, depending on the substance. For example, alcohol has different effects than PCP. Someone could do something on PCP that they wouldn't even realize they were doing, wake up, and not even remember doing it. I suppose thats true with Alcohol, too, but it's still quite different.

Here's a circumstance here; what if a man kills someone while sleepwalking? There is some thing here (forget what the term is) that bassically says that if you are involuntarily unconcious of your actions (i.e. you start sleepwalking) and commit a crime you are not criminal guilty because you had no intent and no knowledge.

I personally think that if you choose to drink or do drugs or whatever, you are 100% guilty on anything you do. If you rape a woman when you are drunk, sucks for you cause you chose to get drunk. Even if you would normally never, ever commit that act, you chose to do soemthing that would be the catalyst for doing that act so you are guilty. It's different from temporary insanity because it is chosen.


Here's a sticky question; if a woman gets really, really drunk and then taken advantage of, is she not therefor somewhat accountable for inhibiting herself from not getting raped?
 
Joined
Jun 6, 2007
Messages
7,312
MBTI Type
INTJ
Not to derail your thread (he says as he derails it), but since you're Mr. Rigorous Logic Dude, what are your thoughts on punishments being determined more by outcomes than by behavior and intent? e.g.: Guy gets a little drunk and runs a stop sign. A cop witnesses it. So the guy loses his license for a couple months, or whatever. But if a school bus happens to be going through the intersection when he runs the stop sign, and several children are killed, he's put away for a long time. The only difference being that he got lucky in the first example, and unlucky in the second (but his intentions and behavior were identical). Is it appropriate to radically alter the severity of a punishment based on factors outside the control of the violator?

I think about this all the time. What about a guy who shoots somebody in the face and they live, against a guy who shoots somebody in the leg, hits an artery and they bleed to death? I understand this is problematic because intent can never be fully ascertained and because the public would likely riot over intent-based sentences. But it still bothers me a little. It's kind of related to both the concept of hate crimes and the practice of charging someone with two counts of murder for killing a pregnant woman. Both make me angry.
 

GZA

Resident Snot-Nose
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
1,771
MBTI Type
infp
In terms of intent here, I think it doesn't matter so much what the intent was, but knowing what the risks involved are. You may have intended to shoot them in the leg so they couldn't walk, but the action you intended to do had a seperate risk attatched to it and is therefor part of the intent. It's more important that you had intent to shoot the leg, or even just the gun/cause harm, then that you intended to do that particular injury and you got unlucky. If you intended to drive through the stop sign, the risk of a crash is attatched to that intent because your action carries risks with it. If you punch a guy in the face in a fight and he dies, you had intent to commit harm, the harm just exceeded your expectations.

In an actual trial it all depends on all kind sof shit (personal history, the judge, blah blah blah), so who knows how you could reduce it...
 

heart

heart on fire
Joined
May 19, 2007
Messages
8,456
No, a person should know themselves enough to know how they react when drunk and if they cannot control their actions while drunk they shouldn't be getting drunk, especially away from their homes.
 

Magic Poriferan

^He pronks, too!
Joined
Nov 4, 2007
Messages
14,081
MBTI Type
Yin
Enneagram
One
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Oh, I agree, absolutely. I was being silly (but I'm sure you knew that).

I know you were being silly, but an intereseting aspect of philosophy is that you have to address silly questions.

Not to derail your thread (he says as he derails it), but since you're Mr. Rigorous Logic Dude, what are your thoughts on punishments being determined more by outcomes than by behavior and intent? e.g.: Guy gets a little drunk and runs a stop sign. A cop witnesses it. So the guy loses his license for a couple months, or whatever. But if a school bus happens to be going through the intersection when he runs the stop sign, and several children are killed, he's put away for a long time. The only difference being that he got lucky in the first example, and unlucky in the second (but his intentions and behavior were identical). Is it appropriate to radically alter the severity of a punishment based on factors outside the control of the violator?

Oh, man. This is a really tough call. At heart, I belief in ethics of consequence, and so that might give reason for me to support changing the sentence based on consequence regardless of cause or intent. However, this could lead to taking up prison space and essentially squandering perfectly good people, which would be an unnecessary loss.

I guess finding the best answer for the question would first require one to determine what the point of the justice system is. If it is to deter, then it should probably give people sentences based on consequences, while if it is more aimed at reform, then it should obviously based it's sentences at least in large part on the character of the person being sentenced.
 

Martoon

perdu fleur par bologne
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
1,361
MBTI Type
INTP
sucks for you cause you chose to get drunk.
Heh. I think that pretty much sums up the whole topic rather nicely.

Here's a sticky question; if a woman gets really, really drunk and then taken advantage of, is she not therefor somewhat accountable for inhibiting herself from not getting raped?
Well, how did it alter her behavior, exactly? If she actually consented to the act because she was drunk, I'd say it definitely makes her accountable. But if she was objecting to what the guy was doing, but her being drunk made her easier to overpower or something, then I'd say the guy is every bit as guilty as if she were sober.
 

Magic Poriferan

^He pronks, too!
Joined
Nov 4, 2007
Messages
14,081
MBTI Type
Yin
Enneagram
One
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Here's a sticky question; if a woman gets really, really drunk and then taken advantage of, is she not therefor somewhat accountable for inhibiting herself from not getting raped?

It's a sticky question only for those who are afraid of looking politically incorrect. The answer is clearly yes, though circumstances alter it, of course. If, say, a college girl got drunk in a frat house and decided to lay down for a little while upstairs, she is definitely accountable to some extent for what happens to her (not that it makes those who take advantage of her any less wrong).

EDIT: To address Martoon's question: if she at any point clearly expresses resistance, then she certainly has very little accountable in the matter, but she may still have a little. It all comes back around to knowledge of consequences and making choices from it. If there were many other different things a woman could do, all of them easy and safer, and yet she chose to put herself in the vulnerable situation with full knowledge of the risks, then she is partly accountable, even she expresses resistence.

Imagine someone deciding to go down the worst alley in town, at night, while carrying jangling bags of expensive jewelry. I do hold at least some right to tell that person that they were being idiotic.

Oh, and lastly, no matter how accountable the victim is for being victimized, the perpetrator is always 100% accountable for his/her own acts. You couldn't say "but the guy was carrying bags of jewelry right into the alley, how could I resist mugging him?!".
 

heart

heart on fire
Joined
May 19, 2007
Messages
8,456
Well, how did it alter her behavior, exactly? If she actually consented to the act because she was drunk, I'd say it definitely makes her accountable. But if she was objecting to what the guy was doing, but her being drunk made her easier to overpower or something, then I'd say the guy is every bit as guilty as if she were sober.

Agree.

magic said:
If, say, a college girl got drunk in a frat house and decided to lay down for a little while upstairs, she is definitely accountable to some extent for what happens to her (not that it makes those who take advantage of her any less wrong).

If she's passed and cannot give consent, it's rape. If she gave consent, it isn't.
 

Magic Poriferan

^He pronks, too!
Joined
Nov 4, 2007
Messages
14,081
MBTI Type
Yin
Enneagram
One
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
If she's passed and cannot give consent, it's rape.

It would be rape, but that it is rape does not mean the woman is suddenly devoid of accountability. In the scenario I depicted, she is at least being highly irresponsible, if nothing else.
 
Top