Again, you're basing this on a rational assessment of the different drugs in question. That's just not the mindset that we're talking about here. When you grow up hearing your parents and your preachers and your teachers all telling you that alcohol is okay in moderation (for adults) but that using other drugs is wrong (and thus illegal), that can have a real impact in establishing your moral compass for those issues. Those influences are pretty much the defining source of your community's norms and traditions.
So if you're the sort of person whose inclination or upbringing leads you to strongly honor your elders and their ideals, it's not a matter of "irrational circular argument". It's not even a matter of "argument" at all: proper morals and laws aren't based on reason, but on received wisdom. In this view, Moses wasn't supposed to ask, "Why not covet my neighbor's house?" It's enough to simply be told what is wrong and what's not.
Once again, I personally do not think that way, and I'm sure that I'm misrepresenting the perspective of folks who do in multiple ways. But my point here is simply to explain why arguing about these issues based on rational consistency or benefit/harm calculations is so often unproductive.
I agree with you that many people think that way. Or more accurately = don't think.
> But my point here is simply to explain why arguing about these issues based on rational consistency or benefit/harm calculations is so often unproductive.
What else can the proponents of change do? How can you change the thinking of people with a framework based on not thinking? Are you suggesting that irrational arguments would be more effective?
So if you're the sort of person whose inclination or upbringing leads you to strongly honor your elders and their ideals, it's not a matter of "irrational circular argument". It's not even a matter of "argument" at all: proper morals and laws aren't based on reason, but on received wisdom. In this view, Moses wasn't supposed to ask, "Why not covet my neighbor's house?" It's enough to simply be told what is wrong and what's not.
Once again, I personally do not think that way, and I'm sure that I'm misrepresenting the perspective of folks who do in multiple ways. But my point here is simply to explain why arguing about these issues based on rational consistency or benefit/harm calculations is so often unproductive.