Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.
The problem of drugs legalization is a topic for debate in many countries where politicians, sociologists, philosophers, and other experts try to address the consequences of using drugs illegally. In his article Dont Legalize Drugs, Theodore Dalrymple focused on the situation in Britain. Dalrymples position is that drugs should not be legalized because drugs prohibition will not restrict peoples freedoms from a philosophical perspective, and drugs legalization cannot lead to decreasing crime rates from a pragmatic perspective.
The authors position that drugs need to be prohibited is based on his rebuttal of the philosophical ideas on legalization and pragmatic reasons. Thus, Dalrymple states that the other peoples arguments supporting legalizing drugs are quite mistaken, and they miss the point, which leads to concluding that drugs should not be legalized. The author supports his main argument with the help of rhetoric strategies and evidence. Dalrymple actively applies logos in his essay, providing opposing views and detailed rebuttals supported by evidence and examples. Presenting his arguments to refute the philosophical argument, the author concludes that not all freedoms can be considered equal, and neither are all limitations of freedom: some are serious and some trivial (Dalrymple). Therefore, the legalization of drugs is not freedom the society needs.
Logos are used to refute the pragmatic argument, but it is also supported by ethos, focusing on the authors experience. Thus, Dalrymple reasonably states, officially sanctioned antisocial behavior & breeds yet more antisocial behavior, crime rates will not decrease, low prices and availability of drugs will increase their consumption. Dalrymple chooses to accentuate his position with the help of ethos, referring to the examples from his experience in Africa and his hospital. The author also applies pathos: If the war against drugs is lost, then so are the wars against theft, speeding, incest, fraud, rape, murder, arson, and illegal parking (Dalrymple). Applying to readers emotions, the author emphasizes that this does not mean that people need to quit fighting these social problems.
One should agree with Dalrymples claim, and the reason is that provided argumentation is presented logically and persuasively. The author effectively refutes his opponents arguments, indicating weaknesses, questionable aspects, controversial details in their positions. Dalrymple critiques the points based on John Stuart Mills philosophy, and it becomes clear that drugs legalization cannot be supported by other philosophers. According to Immanuel Kants deontological ethics, the emphasis should be on evaluating not consequences but intentions; the use of substances cannot be viewed as a right moral intention as its benefit is not generalizable for society. The more positive intention is associated with harm reduction due to prohibiting drugs.
Dalrymples argument should be viewed as rather persuasive and reasonable. The authors approach to presenting his views is effective and convincing, especially concerning Dalrymples ability to refute opponents arguments. From this perspective, it is possible to state that the author successfully applied such rhetoric strategies as logos, pathos, and ethos to support his vision regarding the problem of legalizing drugs.
Work Cited
Dalrymple, Theodore. Dont Legalize Drugs. City Journal, 1997.
Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.