Theist : Smoker :: Atheist : Nonsmoker

Philosophy Forums Society, Government, and Economics
1

I recently had a very heated discussion with a smoker about smoking. Honestly it felt like I was talking to a devout theist. “It’s a personal choice” “it doesn’t hurt anyone” “mind you’re own business”… and on and on.

If could somehow quantify the net pros and cons of smoking, on a scale of say -5 to 5 (must not do, to must do), is smoking negative, zero, or positive?

I can only think of 2 pros (if there are more let me know): temporary relief of stress, and social bonding. The cons: chemical dependency, tar in lungs, yellow teeth, increased rate of hypertension, decreased lung capacity, increased potential for lung cancer, etc…

I am not a smoker, nor am I a cutter, a pedophile, an arsonist, etc. Of these things, the set of pros and cons is easily definable, and it can be shown that the cons outweigh the pros.

Claim: the cons of smoking outweigh the pros, and therefore you should not smoke. Is there a logical fallacy somewhere in there? Or is it simply something that’s taboo?

Is that claim different from this one:
Claim: pros of not smoking outweigh the cons of not smoking.

Related to:

Claim: the cons of being a theist outweigh the pros of being a theist.
Claim: the pros of not being a theist outweigh the cons of not being a theist.
Claim: The pros of not smoking, outweigh the pros of smoking.
Claim: The cons of smoking outweigh the cons of not smoking.

Theist : Smoker :: Atheist : Nonsmoker

2

Smoking can also loosen your bowels, that’s a pro in many cases.

Seriously.

3

So can beans, and ex-lax.

4

Yea, you imply that there’s thoughtful consideration of pros and cons wherever there is action, and that this thoughtful consideration is what action hinges on. Most people act without regard for logical arguments. The condition for their belief/action is not a logical argument explaining the pros and cons, such that if the logical argument is defeated, then the person automatically stop believing/acting. The conditions are alot of other alogical things…like tradition or maybe just that they crave a smoke, and go ahead and have one without even thinking about it. There are probably more, but I can’t think of them.

5

I did not say that smoking was necessarily the most healthy way to loosen the bowels, I just counted it as a pro.

Other pros:

If there is an acquaintance I have that is an asthmatic, but they think I enjoy their company more than I actually do, being a smoker keeps them away from my house.

If I want to have an “accidental,” fire for insurance reasons, I have a convenient excuse for why the fire happened.

Another pro is the countless unsolicited conversations I get to have with some (not all) self-righteous non-smokers who persist in informing me that smoking can be potentially hazardous to my health. Now, listen, do these people really think that I am such an idiot that I cannot read medical reports, watch the news, read the side of my own cigarette pack (where the coupons used to be) and determine that smoking may be a danger to my health?

Perhaps, I should inform these people that informing me that smoking may be a danger to my health could be a danger to their health…because one of these days, one of these people is going to be punched in the face.

6

It sounds like what you are saying is that absence of logical thought processes and analysis supports illogical behavior. I am aware that people act without recourse to logic and reason, but that does not negate my claim that the net benefit to smoking is negative. My claim makes no reference to the shortcomings of people’s thought process. The only way you could negate my claim is to first start by disproving it.

7

Is your argument valid? You’re making a moral argument…people should spot smoking…I’m not sure how to evaluate a moralistic argument other than to speak on whether it’s effective in accomplishing what it sets out to or not…I’m not sure how to evaluate a “should” argument with truth values. Do the cons outnumber the pros? Yea, they do. The antecedent to your moralistic condition is true. Now, does that mean that people should start or stop doing something in lieu of this? I don’t know…that really seems to depend on the person and their values

8

I think the claim might be better stated like this:

Claim: The cons of smoking outweigh the pros, therefore it is better to not smoke than it is to smoke.

But how far does the net pro/con scale have to be tipped before one can say that X should or should not be done?

Really for any action X there can only be 3 views: “you should not do X”, “X is permissible”, “you should do X”.

If X = “punching babies” would you first say “well wait lets examine the puncher’s values first”?

9

I disagree with that claim. The claim is based on the cons, by necessity, out-weighing the pros.

To me, the pros of smoking outweigh the cons, or I would not do it.

We each asign different value to each individual pro and con.

10

Just so I’m clear…

A life with smoking is _______ a life without smoking.

A) greater than
B) equal to
C) worse than

11

First of all, what is, “great?”

Disregarding that:

(Short-Term) Greater Than (My opinion)

(Long-Term) Unknown

Obviously there are POTENTIAL long-term ramnifications of smoking, but it is unknown whether or not I will suffer any long-term repercussions as a result of my choice to smoke.

Now, there are short-term and comparably mild ramnifications to smoking, but that con does not outweigh the pros.

Here was the list of your cons:

chemical dependency, tar in lungs, yellow teeth, increased rate of hypertension, decreased lung capacity, increased potential for lung cancer, etc…

Chemical Dependency: Just because I am a regular smoker does not mean that I am absolutely dependent on cigarettes to the extent that I could not easily quit smoking, there is no way you could know that.

Yellow Teeth: I take excellent care of my teeth. I use the whitening strips, brush about three times a day, use mouthwash, floss, my teeth are whiter than the teeth of many non-smokers. Also, if you are going to even attempt to use that argument as a con, then the cons of drinking coffee would probably outweigh the pros (by your standards) as well.

Increased Rate of Hypertension: Listen, you eat a double-cheeseburger with bacon, you are not screwed forever in terms of weight and health, you exercise. I do not see the need to cite sources, but you would be amazed at what some of the most physically fit people in the world consume, especially when it comes to quantity. Same thing with smoking, you can counter-balance smoking with heart-healthy activity. Definitely a potential long-term problem, but not assuredly a short-term risk issue.

Decreased Lung Capacity: I can’t really argue with you there, but that only makes one absolute con thus far.

Increased Potential for Lung Cancer: I am not guaranteed as a smoker to acquire lung cancer, emphezyma, or any other kind of long-term smoking related illness, so we are talking in hypotheticals here. I will not argue that there is an increased potential, but it is still only a potential. Besides, if I die by being struck by a vehicle with no trace of cancer in my body, then the increased potential for lung cancer as a result of my smoking didn’t make too much of a difference, now did it?

12

The cons might outnumber the pros in number, but the few pros that do exist might be so valuable to a person that they disregard the cons. Some might really value the fact that smoking releases them of anxiety enough to disregard all other negative facts that come with smoking.

But there are some commonalities in values to all humans, I suppose, out of which you could pose some universal moral truisms which all would value more or less equally. I’m not sure what the purpose of doing that is, though.

The scale is irrelevant here. What is relevant is the significance that the particular cons and the pros have for an individual. You can have a million listed cons to one pro, and if the person values that pro enough they’ll disregard all the cons without even thinking about it.

There’s ways I’d like the world to be, and there’s ways that I’d like other people to see the world, viz how I see the world. I could, through my philosophical musings, and under the pretense of getting at truth, claim that my conclusion about things is the best, in hopes that people everywhere stop punching babies for example, which I’m personally against personally doing or witnessing btw, but that would be dishonest and very religious of me. I know better than to make my own personal values metaphysical principles.

So, as I see it, for any action X, where X is any act whatsoever, there is no noumenally good or noumenally bad way of reacting. Hence, there is no way in which all should or should not act based in fact, and as such the matter has to be left up to preference.

13

I am asking your opinion. Nothing more. I’m not playing the definition game.

But is it not fair to say that regular smoking more likely than not leads to a chemical dependency? Also I am not assigning value to the magnitude of the pro or con. I’m only stating that it is a pro or con. I commend your ability to be able to quit easily if that is the case, but i think based on the trend you are an out-lier.

You are right that this is not a very good example. Good on you for your oral hygene.

I hope you’re being sarcastic because that statement is full of fail. Sure if you knew you’d be hit by a car tomorrow, smoke away, because one day wont make a difference. But since you don’t know if or when you will be hit by a car, your argument is flawed.

This sets up a slippery slope to chaos and/or anarchy.

14

Whoa, a whole one liner devoted just to me…

15

Well yeah because your whole post was about the same thing. Which pretty much summed up to “Who cares if X has cons? If Billy-Joe holds the one pro up over the many cons then we shouldn’t criticize his decision to do X.” Or: personal preference trumps rationality.

Some people have a preference for killing people. Assuming they are at least aware that there are cons, if there is just one pro (like the adrenaline rush) is it ok to say sure let them kill? Obviously this is not the case right? There are laws put in place against killing for good reasons.

If there’s more or less to that please correct me.

I think a major issue with the rationality of cigarettes is that people become biased against them due to odors, second hand smoke, having to pay for them all the time, etc. And they become biased toward them because of chemical dependency, the social bonds with other smokers, etc. It is these biases that taint the debate and analysis.

But really, at what point, and with what criteria, is it justified one way or other to say whether or not any action X is a personal choice immune to criticism versus an action that must be either questioned or prevented or encouraged?

16

that stuff is only true of cigs.

17

Which stuff??

18

When action X starts negatively effecting other people.

Clearly murder does this, assuming most people don’t want to be killed.

Smoking can do this, second-hand smoke for instance, but not always. I’ve got no problem with people smoking so long as they do it out with my lungs.

19

The pros are the ones who advertised tobacco for years in the early 1900s to get the public to buy and spread it to future generations who continue to smoke their products; the cons are the ones selling 5.5 mil every year to the suckers.

20

XZC: But is it not fair to say that regular smoking more likely than not leads to a chemical dependency? Also I am not assigning value to the magnitude of the pro or con. I’m only stating that it is a pro or con. I commend your ability to be able to quit easily if that is the case, but i think based on the trend you are an out-lier.

Response: Fair enough, generally true, I have to give you that.

XZC: I hope you’re being sarcastic because that statement is full of fail. Sure if you knew you’d be hit by a car tomorrow, smoke away, because one day wont make a difference. But since you don’t know if or when you will be hit by a car, your argument is flawed.

Response: I did not mean to be sarcastic, I just used a very poor, overly-specific example. In general, what I meant by the statement was if the fact that I MIGHT acquire lung cancer or some other smoking related disease is a con, which it certainly is, but if I die in any fashion completely unrelated to my choice to smoke, then (regarding me specifically) it would be a mute point because it did not happen. In short, you are talking about the possibility of long-term ramnifications which I am opposing by stating that the ramnifications are only a possibility and that there is a greater possibility that I will die in an unrelated fashion.

I guess it doesn’t really change anything that much, but I do not consider myself a very heavy smoker, I probably average five cigarettes a day.