The Ethics of Drinking: Is Alcohol Harmful Beyond Health?

We often struggle in our livelihoods with what is the right thing to do (at least I do). Is drinking alcohol morally bad? Should I lie on my resume? Should I interfere if two people are gossiping about someone?

The dilemmas often appear in the smallest decisions I make or in critical, life-altering ones. Sometimes the path isn’t clear, and the choices at a crossroads can lead anywhere.

Hence, I tried studying different ethical frameworks, starting with the secular ones:

• Utilitarianism by Jeremy Bentham

• Libertarianism by John Stuart Mill

• Deontological Ethics by Immanuel Kant
  

To fill some philosophical voids, it felt necessary to also explore religion-specific frameworks of ethics/morality, namely Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism (Sanatan Dharma).

Today, we will explore these frameworks with a case: Is drinking alcohol (or for that matter, consuming any psychedelic substance) morally right or wrong?

The Hypothesis

In my view, the general perception about drinking alcohol is that it’s bad and morally questionable. Let's start with this hypothesis: Why is that the case?

Let’s ignore the health harms for argument's sake (as you can feel sick by not sleeping or eating too many burgers too). We’ll only focus on the core argument—that these substances intoxicate you.

What Does Intoxication Mean?

The act of intoxication implies losing control of one's senses, i.e., going into a state of escapism and acting solely on instincts.

After drinking alcohol, many of us feel "light," like our heads clear, and suddenly we’re not worried about tomorrow. We gain courage to do or say things we otherwise wouldn’t have.

Is that a good state to be in? Not exactly. This feeling leads to impaired judgment, a loss of rationality in decision-making, and cognitive dissonance. Being governed solely by instincts can be dangerous—think of the thousands of drunk driving accidents, which are a leading cause of traffic fatalities worldwide. Alcohol is also linked to domestic violence incidents, where individuals under the influence harm their partners or children.

In places like Bihar (India), alcohol has been banned due to its use in manipulating voters during elections, where politicians hand out liquor to secure votes. Similarly, college hazing rituals that involve excessive drinking have led to numerous fatalities, with students losing their lives due to alcohol poisoning.

On a broader societal level, alcohol contributes to public brawls, assaults, and even risky behaviors like unprotected sex, which have long-term health and social consequences. In extreme cases, habitual alcohol abuse has fueled chronic issues like poverty, homelessness, and even suicides, as it exacerbates mental health struggles and disconnection from reality.

We are already influenced by emotions like fear or anger in decision-making, but one should not deliberately perform an act that worsens this.

Amoral vs. Moral Decisions

Now, the first thought is: Why are we even weighing this behavior on a moral compass? Shouldn't drinking alcohol be an "amoral" decision—like choosing between an apple or a pineapple pie for dessert, or drinking tea or coffee? Decisions like these don’t put us on a moral judgment scale.

But is that really the case? Should the decision to drink or not drink alcohol be amoral?

There are two ways to resolve this:

1. Amoral decisions do not have long-term consequences or affect others much. However, if we examine alcohol consumption, it clearly has long-term consequences and affects others. Alcohol and drugs are often implicated in crimes and accidents.

   
   

2. Libertarianism argues that personal freedom is the golden standard for morality. A person should be free to drink alcohol if it doesn’t harm others.

   
   

But here’s the issue with libertarianism: It prioritizes individual dignity as the highest criterion, arguing that even in moral dilemmas (like the trolley problem), acting on someone else’s behalf undermines their dignity. Similarly, libertarians may argue that prohibiting alcohol infringes on personal freedom.

To me, honestly, libertarianism as a moral framework doesn’t make strong sense. It disregards social responsibility. For example, a billionaire denying charity is morally wrong because society arbitrarily provides us advantages. Hence, we owe generosity to those disadvantaged by society.

Libertarianism also permits actions that undermine collective dignity—such as prostitution, selective breeding through egg donation, or consenting to get slapped for $1,000. These activities, even if consensual, promote harmful societal norms.

Thus, dismissing the moral implications of drinking alcohol by labeling it as an "independent decision" seems naïve, given its potential harm to individuals and society.

Utilitarianism and Its Flaws

The second argument comes from the utilitarian perspective, which claims that an act is good if it provides happiness to the greatest number. Alcohol can promote social bonding and collective happiness, so why not?

The problem with utilitarianism, as we’ve seen in other contexts, is that it can justify heinous acts, such as feeding Christians to lions for the joy of Roman spectators. Theft from the rich to benefit the poor can also be justified under this framework. Worse, crimes like genocide or the Holocaust have been rationalized through utilitarian reasoning.

In short, utilitarianism can be easily abused, making it an unreliable framework for judging the morality of alcohol consumption.

The "I Just Drink for the Taste" Argument

Finally, there’s the argument: “I just drink for the taste, so why should I be judged morally?” Or, “I only drink moderately with friends to enjoy.”

While I personally don’t enjoy the taste of alcohol, it’s possible that some people genuinely do. But even in these cases, the act of drinking is morally wrong to me because of the intent behind it. By willfully ignoring the risk of intoxication, even in small amounts, we implicitly consent to losing control of our rational faculties. This, in itself, disrespects our very existence as rational beings.

Here, I borrow from Immanuel Kant’s deontological ethics: Even if an action produces a good consequence, if the intent is questionable, the action is morally corrupt. Conversely, if an action has a pure intent but no beneficial outcome, it shines as a moral jewel.

For example, medicines may contain alcohol, but the intent is to heal, which respects the existence of being. Hence, it is not immoral, despite the alcohol content.

Religious Perspectives on Alcohol

Some religious teachings explicitly prohibit alcohol, while others allow moderate consumption. For example:

• Sikhism strongly condemns alcohol, as it impairs one’s connection to spirituality.

• Islam prohibits alcohol outright, as it clouds the mind and interferes with religious duties.

• Christianity has varied views—some denominations discourage it, while others permit moderate consumption (e.g., wine in communion).

• Hinduism has no outright ban but advises temperance, as excess leads to loss of control and negative karma.

  
  

Conclusion

These are my personal views, but it would be hypocritical to say these principles can change depending on the situation. The very point we’ve established here is that deliberately drinking alcohol is objectively bad under the frameworks discussed above.

That said, I will not take a moral high ground here as I have in my college days have consumed alcohol, hence I was a sinner in all sorts

I’d love to hear your views! I promise to keep an open mind.

Thanks for reading!