You agreed that:
So long as they do not harm others, individuals should be free to pursue their own ends
But disagreed that:
The possession of drugs for personal use should be decriminalised
Drug abuse is an external argument, but suffice it to say, I strongly disagree with their implied assertion that drug use harms no one except the user. This is especially true as a consequence of my social political views, particularly in regard to the establishment and maintenance of basic living standards. So long as the state foots part of the medical and social bills for its inhabitants, which is a condition which I support, the use of particular recreational drugs and the health and lifestyle consequences do have knock-on effects on other people.
Sorry, but this "tension" is perfectly accurate and your justification is weak as heck. Criminalize the things that
actually harm others, as long as you advocate broad criminalization (or argue that the state should have authority over the health pursuits of its citizens) you can't really argue that "So long as they do not harm others, individuals should be free to pursue their own ends". Especially since drug laws, you know, have just as many (if not more) knock-on effects. The question didn't say anything about drug abuse or drug regulation, or even ask about legalization, only about decriminalization of personal use.
No, but faith is not a synonym for belief. Faith is belief without evidence, specifically. Even if they were synonyms, agnosticism doesn't qualify, since it is an absence of either belief.
Hey, guess what! An absence of evidence where evidence should exist is actually evidence of absence! If someone tells me the world is just chock-full of white llamas, and I've looked around for them my whole life and not managed to find a single one, it is not
faith to believe they are wrong. (Mind you, there are a LOT of definitions of gods, depending on which semantic argument you're making the same person may become more or less theistic for this exact reason)
AnywayI got one tension,
You agreed that:
There are no objective moral standards; moral judgements are merely an expression of the values of particular cultures
And also that:
Acts of genocide stand as a testament to man's ability to do great evil
But that one is pretty easy to explain. My moral judgements are an expression of the values of my particular culture, and genocide is totally against those values, hence evil. It's almost always against the values of the people being genocided too, and in many cases it's explicitly against the values of the culture doing the genociding as well! (They just justify it as an exception).
So that's like a triple whammy of subjective evil, even without objective moral standards.