[MD] moral judgements

[craigerb at comcast.net]

[Craig]
> Suppose there was a drug that was recreationally pleasurable or medically 
> beneficial, but had the unfortunate side-effect of leading x% of the time 
> to violent behavior (0<=x<=100).  Should we allow the drug & deal with the 
> violence on a case-by-case basis; totally ban the drug; or allow the drug 
> in some cases but not others (& if so, on what basis?)

[David M]
> I suggest we take a vote, I vote to ban it. Am I wrong?

Not so much wrong as overly simple.
Let me recap:  Originally you said that acting morally was 1) simply a response to your environment which 2) lead to the best possible world.
I agreed but wanted to make the point that while 1) can be simple, 2) can be complex.
You asked for an example.
I gave the example above.
You gave a simple answer above to my hypothetical example.
I was hoping that you would reply that your answer would depend on what value x had as it varied from 0% to 100%.  Near 0% there is little reason to ban the drug; near 100% there is good reason.  In between, we must weigh the pros (freedom, pleasure & health) vs. the cons (possibility of violence).  These last cases I find complex.
Whereas you started with the criterion for moral action as that which leads to the best possible world, you now have the competing criterion as that which has been voted for. 
Craig