Ethics of Underage Drinking
Robert Bellamy
Issue date: 1/29/08 Section: Commentary
As a Catholic and an American, I often find myself stuck between two worlds. I owe my loyalty to my Church and my God while at the same time I am a citizen of a mostly just and democratic society. Thankfully more often than not, these two realms do not contradict each other.
At this university, I find many people with a profound sense of an extrinsic sense of order. Many, especially the more conservative Catholics like myself, would agree that God promulgates his law and this is the law man is to follow. It is Thomas Aquinas who writes that human law must base itself on the divine law to be valid. Societies have the duty to govern their people and people must recognize that each individual person is not the social or moral arbiter over his actions. The result would be total anarchy.
All of us would agree that because one has the capacity to rob a bank does not mean one should (Recall Thrasymachus!). I think that most would also agree that even traffic laws, barring extenuating circumstances, should be obeyed in order to maintain respect for civil authority.
Yet at this school there is a law that seems to garner little to no respect. Underage drinking remains extremely prevalent at UD, especially among more conservative Catholics, albeit perhaps not as dangerously as at other schools. Just because one can drink safely at 19, does that mean one should? The law itself may seem unfair, yet I cannot find any moral reason to justify why drinking should be legal for those under 21. Sure it would be nice to be able to drink earlier, but we are not the personal arbiters over the law.
Can anyone really argue abstaining from alcohol until 21 is immoral? If not, then drinking underage needlessly disregards civil authority and undermines the law of the land. Additionally, there are many biblical passages that warn against drunkenness (The verse in Romans that brought St. Augustine around comes to mind.). Granted that many who drink underage here do it socially and avoid drunkenness, it does not mean it is right to do so.
When society makes a law such as the age at which one can vote or drive, it is, of course, arbitrary. But this does not make it unjust. There certainly are many people under the age of 21 who could probably drink safely. But if we are to live out our Catholic faith in a democratic nation like the United States, how can we argue for the virtues of having a beer at 20 years old? As Pope Benedict XVI said in his latest encyclical Spe Salvi, "Freedom must constantly be won over for the cause of good." It is time for students at UD to use their freedom to say no to underage drinking.
(Contributing writer Robert Bellamy is a senior theology major.)
At this university, I find many people with a profound sense of an extrinsic sense of order. Many, especially the more conservative Catholics like myself, would agree that God promulgates his law and this is the law man is to follow. It is Thomas Aquinas who writes that human law must base itself on the divine law to be valid. Societies have the duty to govern their people and people must recognize that each individual person is not the social or moral arbiter over his actions. The result would be total anarchy.
All of us would agree that because one has the capacity to rob a bank does not mean one should (Recall Thrasymachus!). I think that most would also agree that even traffic laws, barring extenuating circumstances, should be obeyed in order to maintain respect for civil authority.
Yet at this school there is a law that seems to garner little to no respect. Underage drinking remains extremely prevalent at UD, especially among more conservative Catholics, albeit perhaps not as dangerously as at other schools. Just because one can drink safely at 19, does that mean one should? The law itself may seem unfair, yet I cannot find any moral reason to justify why drinking should be legal for those under 21. Sure it would be nice to be able to drink earlier, but we are not the personal arbiters over the law.
Can anyone really argue abstaining from alcohol until 21 is immoral? If not, then drinking underage needlessly disregards civil authority and undermines the law of the land. Additionally, there are many biblical passages that warn against drunkenness (The verse in Romans that brought St. Augustine around comes to mind.). Granted that many who drink underage here do it socially and avoid drunkenness, it does not mean it is right to do so.
When society makes a law such as the age at which one can vote or drive, it is, of course, arbitrary. But this does not make it unjust. There certainly are many people under the age of 21 who could probably drink safely. But if we are to live out our Catholic faith in a democratic nation like the United States, how can we argue for the virtues of having a beer at 20 years old? As Pope Benedict XVI said in his latest encyclical Spe Salvi, "Freedom must constantly be won over for the cause of good." It is time for students at UD to use their freedom to say no to underage drinking.
(Contributing writer Robert Bellamy is a senior theology major.)
Be the first to comment on this story