tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post5540065455166712657..comments2023-10-24T04:29:23.693-06:00Comments on Atheist Ethicist: SmokingAlonzo Fyfehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-3667167983499618842008-01-29T07:57:00.000-07:002008-01-29T07:57:00.000-07:00I agree that selling/addicting children is absolut...I agree that selling/addicting children is absolutely unethical. although, I am unsure whether 'most' start as children, you may be correct, However, my questions related to consenting adults. Also, once again shouldn't the value be determined by the parties involved irrespective of what we may think the value ought to be?<BR/><BR/>Regardless, I think I am splitting hairs on a dead horse headed in the wrong direction. So, thank you for the discussion. It has definitely made me think.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-30971873735374361262008-01-29T06:18:00.000-07:002008-01-29T06:18:00.000-07:00KevinThe 'value' that people find in smoking is th...<B>Kevin</B><BR/><BR/>The 'value' that people find in smoking is the release from the craving that the tobacco gives. them.<BR/><BR/>Most people get their addiction to tobacco when they are children - when they are susceptible to suggestion.<BR/><BR/>We think that the adult that takes the 15 year old girl to bed with him is despicable.<BR/><BR/>No less dispicable than the tobaccoo company executive getting a kid hooked on tobacco.Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-87938183122064883502008-01-28T22:55:00.000-07:002008-01-28T22:55:00.000-07:00eneasz -Again, I'm not trying to defend the tobacc...eneasz -<BR/><BR/>Again, I'm not trying to defend the tobacco industry, however I'm still not sure the logic follows.<BR/><BR/>Regardless of the value that you assign to it, apparently other people value it. I might say that reality television has no value, but many people would disagree. <BR/><BR/>As for "intentionally implanted" craving, the tobacco industry has definitely tried to enhanced the addictive aspect of tobacco, but nicotine is a natural chemical in tobacco. Similarly, "implanting a craving for tobacco in people" is misleading. As far as I know, no one is forced to smoke. Tobacco was cultivated and consumed before the tobacco industry was around.<BR/><BR/>I absolutely agree that the tobacco industry has been extremely deceptive, in fact criminally fraudulent, in what they produce and how they sell it. However, if there is no deception, and they are providing a product that people are knowingly willing to buy, even if it is harmful, is there anything inherently unethical. The value judgments, I think, are completely subjective. <BR/><BR/>Honestly, I think I am wrong, but I'm not seeing the logic. Is the fact that it is "engineered" to be more addictive and that it is harmful even relevant to the logic if both parties are willing participants?<BR/><BR/>Are we ethically obligated to do no harm... to ourselves? And are we ethically obligated to <I>not</I> produce anything that can be used to harm oneself? ...Or that can <I>only</I> be used to harm oneself?!?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-43990583071946749032008-01-28T09:56:00.000-07:002008-01-28T09:56:00.000-07:00Ken -I'm gonna take a stab at this, because all th...Ken -<BR/>I'm gonna take a stab at this, because all these were swirling thru my head when I was writing my original comments.<BR/><BR/>The tobacco industry is unique among legal industries in that it provides absolutely nothing of value. It does not have any side benefit of providing nutrition, or entertainment, or even inebriation. Literally the only thing tobacco does is temporarily reduce a craving to consume tobacco, which was a craving intentionally implanted by the tobacco companies for the sole purpose of selling you tobacco. Furthermore it is by no means harmless (insert long list of harmful effects of smoking, we all know them by now). Yet the tobacco companies just don't care how much misery (and death) they cause by implanting a craving for tobacco in people, as long as they can keep selling you tobacco. Thus they are an abjectly immoral industry.<BR/><BR/>And by buying tobacco you know full well that you are funding this effort of that industry to do more harm for profit. Which in a sense makes you somewhat morally complicit.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-32415025665603393662008-01-26T12:52:00.000-07:002008-01-26T12:52:00.000-07:00Granted, smoking is unhealthy, expensive, and gene...Granted, smoking is unhealthy, expensive, and generally pretty disgusting. <BR/><BR/>But is it morally wrong?<BR/><BR/>I am not entirely clear on the tenets and logic of your "desire utilitarianism", so perhaps under that philosophy it can be considered morally wrong, however I fail to see the logic based on your article. After wading through the appeals to emotion and guilt by association, I am still not certain how one person's decision to smoke (or not) causes any other person to smoke (or not). Does it not boil down to a person's decision and therefore a personal responsibility? Is any person responsible for the actions of another person (excluding coercion, gross negligence, etc.)? <BR/><BR/>Also, as to the inherent rightness or wrongness of smoking, excluding for the moment effects on other people, doesn't the estimation of whether or not "future desires" are being thwarted by "current desires", depend entirely on one's own "future desires"? Can we say definitively whether smoking thwarts or enables someone else's particular "future desires." Are we now deciding other people's desires, current or otherwise?<BR/><BR/>As for supporting "an industry that inflicts agonizing deaths on others for profit," hyperbole aside, aren't those actions the responsibility of those taking the actions. In fact, aren't the actions you speak of, e.g. advertising targeted at minors, illegal in most cases. Not that legality and ethics actually coincide, but they are held legally responsible in those cases.<BR/><BR/>Although I may seem to be defending smoking and the smoking industry, what I am actually concerned with is the assumption of responsibility for the actions of another. Is a smoker responsible for harm to another when that harm is avoidable by the other person? And not just avoidable, but that other person has to consciously engage in said harm. This is excepting, of course, direct harm by second-hand smoke, which I think smokers are ethically, and in many cases legally, obligated to avoid. As we all are - ethically obligated to avoid causing harm. (Possible exceptions being self-defense, defense of others, war(?), etc.)<BR/><BR/>The cliche analogy, I think, applies here; Is a person responsible, or ethically culpable, for another person's obesity because the first person "supports" McDonald's by buying a Big Mac? (Likewise, alcohol, junk food, television, pornography, electricity (global warming), etc.) Yes, the addictive nature of tobacco subtracts from already low, or non-existent, desirability of smoking, but isn't that just a matter of degree. Doesn't McDonald's "engineer" their food to taste good regardless of nutritional value, and in some cases directly harmful, e.g. Trans-fats, until forced to do otherwise? Doesn't the oil industry do everything in it's power to make it's products more desirable regardless of the impact on the environment, until forced to do otherwise. <BR/><BR/>Sorry, for the long winded post, but I would generally like to understand the argument presented. If you are saying something like, 'Yet more reasons not to smoke... ,' I whole-heartedly (and whole-mindedly) agree. However, if you are saying that smoking is inherently unethical, I'm not sure that your case has been made. Although, I am more than willing to be convinced otherwise.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-89185545845178550412008-01-24T10:20:00.000-07:002008-01-24T10:20:00.000-07:00Damn, I hate having to change. :/So, when WOULD it...Damn, I hate having to change. :/<BR/><BR/>So, when WOULD it be acceptable to buy tobacco? Would an addictive substance have to be non-carcinogenic? Would the company have to be one that didn't intentionally create a product that's as addictive as possible?<BR/><BR/>It seems like the vileness of tobacco comes from the fact that the major companies intentionally create a market of addicts and don't have the slightest bit of concern for the negative effects that tobacco has on it's users. Would, perhaps, a local grower who doesn't engineer his tobacco and warns his buyers of the risks be less objectionable to buy from?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-58299007554743846372008-01-23T18:41:00.000-07:002008-01-23T18:41:00.000-07:00SteveYour statement is true, and something that I ...<B>Steve</B><BR/><BR/>Your statement is true, and something that I addressed in an earlier post on <A HREF="http://atheistethicist.blogspot.com/2007/01/unhealty-lifestyles-and-universal.html" REL="nofollow">Unhealthy Lifestyles and Universal Health Care</A>Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-65975743254697141492008-01-23T17:41:00.000-07:002008-01-23T17:41:00.000-07:00There's another moral dimension here, that may app...There's another moral dimension here, that may apply more in Canada and other countries with universal health care than it does to the United States - on average, a smoker will require more than his or her fair share of health care resources as a result of their smoking as they age. That is to say that non-smokers are put in a position in which they are literally paying for the smoker's poor decisions.<BR/><BR/>Come to think of it, Americans should feel this too, since their government allegedly spends more per capita on health care than the Canadian government does, despite the lack of universal health care in the US.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-79417411733787634962008-01-23T14:01:00.000-07:002008-01-23T14:01:00.000-07:00I object to the smoked form of *any* drug more tha...I object to the smoked form of *any* drug more than other forms, since the smoker is inflicting that drug on anyone nearby.<BR/><BR/>I would support having a government monopoly on drugs for which there is substantial evidence of addictiveness. Keep the price high but no so high as to create a black market. Make the smoked form of any drug at least twice as expensive as other forms.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-92179708672969797702008-01-23T11:55:00.000-07:002008-01-23T11:55:00.000-07:00eneaszYou're analogy to 9/11 is somewhat flawed.It...<B>eneasz</B><BR/><BR/>You're analogy to 9/11 is somewhat flawed.<BR/><BR/>It is not like blaming all religious people for 9/11.<BR/><BR/>It is like blaming all the people who purchased something from an Al-Queida bake sale, under a banner that says "Anti-American Attack Fund" for 9/11.<BR/><BR/>You know what the money will be used for.<BR/><BR/>The employee of the company that makes agriculture fertilizer cannot be blamed for smoker deaths any more than she can be blamed for the Oklahoma City terrorist attack. But the agriculture supply store employee who sells the fertilizer to a customer who says "I'm going to use this for a bomb to blow up the federal building in Oklahoma City," and who is known to be telling the truth, can be blamed.<BR/><BR/>You're purchasing goods at a fundraiser for the 'get people addicted to cigarettes club'. It may well be a product that you want to buy. But is it an organization you want to support?Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-81118205461157089242008-01-23T10:15:00.000-07:002008-01-23T10:15:00.000-07:00I love the post. :)I am a smoker myself. I'd alw...I love the post. :)<BR/><BR/>I am a smoker myself. I'd always been aware of the health effects, and of the role-model problems. I have two younger brothers (now teenagers, but I started smoking years ago), and I tell them frequently that it's a horrible habit and they should avoid it like the plauge. Hopefully my words (and those of our parents, and society) have had more impact than my actions. I also always make sure to never smoke where there's a chance the 2nd-hand smoke will reach a child. This is much easier for me than many older people, as I can't remember (or for that matter, even imagine) a time where it was ever permissible to smoke indoors (with occasional exceptions when put in sequestered areas).<BR/><BR/>Before I go on, I would like to acknowledge that this sounds very much like a rationalization, and it probably is. I can hear the additiction speaking even as I type this.<BR/><BR/>However I want to take some exception to the statement that I am supporting an industry that makes a profit by slowly killing people, and thus am implicit in that act. Yes, the industry does this. And yes, buy purchasing tobacco I am supporting their continued existance. However I feel this commits the error of blaming an individual for actions he did not commit by association with a group. Similar to blaming all religious people for the 9/11 attacks.<BR/><BR/>I have nothing to do with the deaths of other people. I am contributing directly to my own death, and I am aware of this. I'm paying money I earned for a product I want. Every other smoker is doing the same thing. I must object to being blamed for contributing to the deaths of people I've never seen, never had any interaction with, and will never be able to affect in the slightest way. Can the employee for a company that produces agricultural fertilzer also be blamed for smoker deaths in this way?<BR/><BR/>That being said, I do support all the laws prohibitting smoking in public places, and am a proponent of the social campaign to end smoking. Which, I know, is somewhat inconsistant with my actions. But hey, I'm gonna die of something eventually anyway. :/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-4215717669367744172008-01-23T09:09:00.000-07:002008-01-23T09:09:00.000-07:00JoshLet me know if my earlier posting on Suicide, ...<B>Josh</B><BR/><BR/>Let me know if my earlier posting on <A HREF="http://atheistethicist.blogspot.com/2007/07/suicide.html" REL="nofollow">Suicide</A>, <A HREF="http://atheistethicist.blogspot.com/2005/10/physician-assisted-suicide.html" REL="nofollow">Physician Assisted Suicide</A>, and (in my other blog), <A HREF="http://atheistethicistjournal.blogspot.com/2008/01/selfishness-argument-against-suicide.html" REL="nofollow">The Selfishness Argument against Suicide</A> do not address your questions.Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-21661982286378841872008-01-23T07:53:00.000-07:002008-01-23T07:53:00.000-07:00A very timely post. I'm going through the process...A very timely post. I'm going through the process of quiting smoking, and this gives me a little more edge to fight against those cravings. <BR/><BR/>As long as I don't bite someone's head off first. Withdrawal is a bitch.<BR/><BR/>I'm wondering what your take is on depression / suicide. Perhaps a future post?Joshhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13666102861045517530noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-49587151496881884132008-01-23T05:44:00.000-07:002008-01-23T05:44:00.000-07:00James W.I also recommend against drinking alcohol....<B>James W.</B><BR/><BR/>I also recommend against drinking alcohol. However, alcohol (a) is not engineered to be addictive, and (b) does not have the adverse health effects when taken in moderation. The main quality that tobacco has that alcohol does not have is the quality of addicting children to something that will adversely affect most of their lives.<BR/><BR/>I agree that we need more research on what inclines a child to start smoking. I believe that the most common determinator is whether their friends smoke. Infect one child with a desire to smoke, and that child will infect others in his or her peer group. However, policy should be based on what the science discovers, not on my guesses.<BR/><BR/>I was one of those children of parents who smoke, who does not smoke myself. However, my parents (and my father in particular) protested that getting addicted to cigarettes is a bad thing and the best way to avoid smoking is to never start.Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-66790655838853572032008-01-23T01:18:00.000-07:002008-01-23T01:18:00.000-07:00So how does Big Alcohol stack up against Big Tobac...So how does Big Alcohol stack up against Big Tobacco in your rant? Much of what you stated can easily be translated to Big Alcohol. If you substitute things like "alcohol" and "drinking" for "tobacco" and "smoking", you'd find an easy fit. After reading it in an alcohol-directed tone, it puts a very different spin on something that is not only far more socially acceptable but far more easily accessible in public places. <BR/><BR/>I'd really like to see this rant with citations or footnotes considering how easily portions of it can be debunked lending that much of it is based on opinion and less on fact.<BR/><BR/>For example, I know a large number of people who don't smoke but their parents were 2-pack-a-day smokers. These people won't touch cigarettes at all but they sure will drink themselves under the table. I, like many people, can state that a child will more easily take to alcohol if their parents drink than smoke if their parents smoke. This has little to do with morality or aversion as you seem to posit so strongly and more to do with accessibility and social acceptance of the action.Richard F.https://www.blogger.com/profile/04008051626581862268noreply@blogger.com