I am starting to think that a much more reasonable, and achievable, goal would be three per month. This is what I have averaged pretty much since I started this, so to hit my goal, I should just change the goal to what I already hit. But since I already hit it, it isn't really much of a goal, is it? But to hit the goal of 4 per month, I would have to do five per month, at least until October. I think I'll keep the same goal; of course, there are no consequences if I don't hit it.
Like most of my posts, this one stems from a conversation that I was having with my spouse. I talk with her about a fair number of things, so that's not really a surprise. I suppose there was a bit of irony in that we were talking about this while we were on our way to a pub. What I wanted to write about today was about alcohol (hence the irony). Specifically, I was thinking about whether people are responsible for their actions when they are under the influence of alcohol. There are some legal aspects I will touch on, but the legal aspects are not the only ones in play here.
I may be drunk, but I know what I'm doing: The consumption of alcohol does not excuse behaviour. There is no dispute that alcohol changes behaviour, but the individual is still responsible for their actions - that is the whole point of free will. Alcohol itself does not make an individual do things - the individual still makes choices that make them responsible. Some people may get really drunk, but never get into a fight when they are drunk, because that is not who they are. Some people may have their valve turned off when they get drunk and say or do things that they wouldn't say or do if they were sober, but still there was thought that went into whatever they said and they ultimately chose to say it. That someone doesn't remember saying something doesn't mean that it was any less a reflection of what they thought.
There is also a basic premise that the individual chooses to get drunk, and therefore is responsible for their actions because they put themselves in the drunken situation. If a person knowingly and consciously makes a choice to drink, they are fully aware that they may potentially become drunk and are that they may act differently when drunk. Acting and feeling differently is one reason why people drink. Even if you may not be able to predict the specificity of their actions, the individual can still predict that they will become intoxicated.
The best argument for the individual being responsible for their drunken actions are the existence of drunk driving laws. If an individual is legally responsible for drunk driving when they clearly had no intention of drunk driving, then they are morally responsible as well. The same application of the principle applies in cases of, for example, spousal abuse. Maybe someone only abuses their spouse when they are drunk, but they are still legally and morally responsible. And they have to deal with it when they sober up.
Too drunk to walk, too drunk to think: Most people believe that consumption of alcohol does excuse behaviour. Many people would accept an apology from someone who did questionable things when that person was drunk; but they wouldn't accept an apology if the person wasn't under the influence. If a person gets drunk and pees in a houseplant, for example, it may be funny and the person who owns the plant would probably laugh about (maybe much later). But if someone just peed in a houseplant when they were stone cold sober, it wouldn't be funny at all.
Even when people choose to drink and get drunk, they do not always choose to get as drunk as they do. Every drink a person takes changes their internal meter, and their judgement becomes impaired. Many times people will say, the next day, that they had no intention of getting that drunk, it just happened! And even if the intent was to get drunk, that is a decision that can't be made when one becomes too impaired to think about the consequences of their actions.
Legally, a person is still responsible if they drink and drive, for example. But the courts routinely recognize that judgement was not clear. A murder, not involving a drunk driver, could get anywhere from 10 years to life. A drunk driving causing death conviction is likely to get no more than 5 years, and more likely 3 or less. This is because the courts, which are an extension of our moral thought, believe that unless there is a pattern of behaviour, the action that caused the death is not part of a usual thought pattern. So if the courts recognize that it is less of an offense - and therefore not as much of a choice - then so does the rest of society.
What I think: I have wrestled with this issue for a long time. Ultimately, i think that the individual is responsible for their actions whether they are drunk or not. But where I always run into muddy waters is when we look at things from a victim's point of view. If a drunk driver kills a passenger in their own vehicle who was also drunk, is the passenger also not responsible for their own death? If they weren't capable of making the decision to get into a car because it wasn't safe for them, why do we hold the driver accountable? Same thing goes, much as I suspect this will cause some discomfort, for victims of drunken date rape. If a victim is unable to consent to sex due to alcohol, then how can we hold an equally drunk attacker responsible? I do not think that alcohol is an excuse for doing shitty things to other people - the old saying "In alcohol there is truth" may have some truth in it itself. And I never believe that alcohol should criminally relieve responsibility, and this is because I really do believe that the individual chooses to get drunk, and therefore is responsible for their actions.
How I relate: Been drunk many many times. And have done a few things that I sincerely believe I wouldn't have done if I wasn't drunk. And wished I hadn't done them later. I have had a tendency to commit petty acts of vandalism and theft when drunk - and I don't usually do that unprovoked when sober. A few other things, too. But I always reflect on those things and think that maybe I didn't want to do those things when sober - but only because of the consequences. Ultimately I was the one who did them, and I hold myself responsible; and I have never used the "I was drunk" excuse for anything. The only times that really worried me were the few times that I blacked out. That is a truly horrible experience and I really don't like what it can reveal about me, if only to myself. But none of that is going to stop me from drinking. It will keep me from drinking too much, though.
There's nothing booze to get me talking. All this typing had made me thirsty. And only 4 more posts this month!
