The topic of the prohibition of anything is debatable in itself but when we talk about alcohol prohibition which is a part of society since the early time of human we find there are so many contrasting perspectives on it. Many times alcoholism is questioned on an ethical basis which starts the debate of prohibition or not prohibiting so here I would like to apply two ethical theories and would try to analyze the question of alcohol prohibition derived from ethical concerns. For a better understanding of the topic, I would choose two theories which can offer two contrasting perspectives on the topic.
I would analyze the topic under the ethical theories, Deontological and Consequentialist perspectives.Prohibition: according to the Merriam-Webster, prohibition is the act of prohibiting by the authority in order to restrain or stop to do/use something. The literal meaning of prohibiting is to prevent from doing something so we can say that prohibition is the act to prevent from doing something. Now when we talk about the alcohol prohibition it includes many things not just as to stop people from consuming liquor but the forbidding by law of the manufacture, transportation, and sale of alcoholic liquors except for medicinal and sacramental purposes.Alcohol: A colorless volatile flammable liquid which is produced by the natural fermentation of sugars and is the intoxicating constituent of wine, beer, spirits, and other drinks, and is also used as an industrial solvent and as fuel. ‘Definition of alcohol’Alcohol and nicotine are two of the three most seriously abused drugs in the world. By this, we mean the total damage done to the most people. The third drug of this unholy trinity is caffeine.
Surprised? While the problems with booze and cigarettes are fairly obvious, this is not yet the case with caffeine. A person who uses alcohol, nicotine, caffeine, prescription drugs, and any of the illegal drugs, will eventually destroy his or her immune system and exhibit the classic symptoms of AIDS, without necessarily being infected by a virus at all.Deontology: In contemporary moral philosophy, deontology is one of those kinds of normative theories regarding which choices are morally required, forbidden, or permitted. In other words, deontology falls within the domain of moral theories that guide and assess our choices of what we ought to do (deontic theories), in contrast to those that guide and assess what kind of person we are and should be (aretaic virtue theories). And within the domain of moral theories that assess our choices, deontologists—those who subscribe to deontological theories of morality—stand in opposition to consequentialists.
‘Alexander, Larry and Moore, Michael’ (Winter 2016 Edition)Consequentialism: as its name suggests, is the view that normative properties depend only on consequences. This general approach can be applied at different levels to different normative properties of different kinds of things, but the most prominent example is consequentialism about the moral rightness of acts, which holds that whether an act is morally right depends only on the consequences of that act or of something related to that act, such as the motive behind the act or a general rule requiring acts of the same kind. ‘Sinnott-Armstrong, Walter’ (Winter 2015 Edition)Consequentialism is based on two principles:Whether an act is right or wrong depends only on the results of that actThe more good consequences an act produces, the better or more right that actIt gives us this guidance when faced with a moral dilemma:A person should choose the action that maximises good consequencesAnd it gives this general guidance on how to live:People should live so as to maximise good consequencesIn practice, people don’t assess the ethical consequences of every single act (that’s called ‘act consequentialism’) because they don’t have the time.Instead, they use ethical rules that are derived from considering the general consequences of particular types of acts. That is called ‘rule consequentialism’.So, for example, according to rule consequentialism, we consider lying to be wrong because we know that in general lying produces bad consequences.Results-based ethics produces this important conclusion for ethical thinking:No type of action is inherently wrong – not even murder – it depends on the result of the act.
‘About consequentialism’Consequences of Alcohol:Drinking too much – on a single occasion or over time – can take a serious toll on your health. Here’s how alcohol can affect your body.Brain: Alcohol interferes with the brain’s communication pathways, and can affect the way the brain looks and works. These disruptions can change mood and behavior, and make it harder to think clearly and move with coordination. Heart: Drinking a lot over a long time or too much on a single occasion can damage the heart, causing problems.Liver: Heavy drinking takes a toll on the liver, and can lead to a variety of problems and liver inflammations.Cancer: Drinking too much alcohol can increase your risk of developing certain cancers, including cancers.
‘Alcohol’s Effects on the Body’Conclusion: Consuming alcohal is not good by both deontological and cosequensalist point of view, casue consequnces of alcohal affects the human body as well s/he violets the peacefull environment by his/her voice as its cosequences affects both society and especially that person who is consuming, and by deontological perspective if we see consumption of alcohal in this contemporary society is still not seen as a good manner and not preferable, but everyone has their own rights to live life accordingly so they are allowed to consume alcohal in private places not publicly, in Newzeland a group of liqour consumers has made a sand island far from beach to be the out of the boundary from liqor banned area. Most domestic violence has an alcohol component. The notion that a little bit of alcohol is good for you, is little more than a popular myth promoted by the alcoholism industry. Even if it were true, how many drinkers do you know who can limit their consumption to one ounce or less per day?Bibliography:Alexander, Larry and Moore, Michael, “Deontological Ethics”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2016 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), Sinnott-Armstrong, Walter, “Consequentialism”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2015 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.),