| I love Ender's Game, but after reading Orson Scott Card's newer books I start to get the sense of what everyone was talking about, how he tries really hard to push his bullshit philosophy on the proper way to live life. Which if you read anything that came after Ender's Game, boils down to: "your life, in the form of your combination of genes and your actions, lives on through younger generations, so it's your responsibility to procreate and establish relations with them". I haven't quite made the connection about why it's your responsibility to perpetuate your life in the first place (maybe that's his answer to the Human Condition?), but at this point I don't really care to figure it out. I don't really buy into the belief that it's a responsibility, but I think it's certainly an idea that most people want. To be remembered, to have "you", whether it's your genes or actions or creations or thoughts, to live on. I don't think I will have children (that's another post), so I imagine that when I die there will be nothing left of me but this little blog. And while I pour out myself here from time to time - the little machinations and obfuscated emotions - it's probably about time that I actually put something that may be constructive to read, viewpoints. So what follows is an unmodified transcript from some stupid internet debate I had (I have a lot of these in spurts, when I work up the courage to talk to people), that I think gives a pretty clear illustration of my viewpoints and thinking process. It's about a recently announced initiative to ban all smoking on University of California campuses. I should mention, if only because the world in 2012 still clings so much to ethos to settle their arguments, that I've never actually touched a cigarette in my life, and hardly know anyone who smokes. Other: "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins" or, conversely, your right to blow smoke ends where my fresh air begins. Having said that, smokers should probably have a sanctuary or two available on campus, preferably deep in the bowels of the humanities building or something. I had to walk behind a smoker today. Shit's annoying. Me: The ban also applies to chewing tobacco, which has detrimental health effects on third parties on the same level as bubble gum.
A "right to free air" is a completely silly concept to try to enforce (and that "right" doesn't exist, anyway). You've probably driven a car at some point in your life, and unless it was an all-electric, you probably emitted pollutants into the air that were unhealthy for pedestrians walking on a nearby sidewalk. Should we similarly ban all drivers from the city for violating our right to breathe clean air? If we do, where does it stop? A ban on gas-powered lawnmowers? Charcoal bbq grills? Campfires at state parks? Of course, bans of this sort DO happen, and some of them are very sensible. We don't have automobile bans, but we do have smog checks, for example, to make sure that whatever cars are on the road don't pollute *too* much.
The point is that there will always be a new law you can make to marginally improve some aspect of society, but pretty much by definition, EVERY law enacted infringes on personal liberty. So anytime a new law comes about, it's backwards to think about what new "rights" you've established (especially when those rights are imaginary). Instead the question should be, is the personal freedom that is restricted, justified by the net effect of the law?
In the case of smog checks, everyone has agreed to forgo the freedom to choose and drive a car without a catalytic converter. In return we removed a majority of air pollutants emitted by cars and the major smog problems they caused, and almost all members of society are happy with that tradeoff, even the principals whose liberties are restricted (drivers). Could you say the same for this law? And how much of a health benefit do you expect from a ban on *open-air* smoking (given that smoking's already banned indoors and at building entrances)? Other: @Nathan, Notice I didn't say I have a right to fresh air, just that I think it's a reasonable expectation that a walk across the quad won't include inhaling carcinogenic fumes. Your comment conflates the issue of whether the public should subject to the harmful byproducts of another's habits with the question of whether we should expect clean air everywhere all the time. For this reason your examples aren't strictly analogous. I wouldn't ban lawnmowers or automobiles precisely because they have some utility despite their pollution which sustains the kind of social arrangements you describe. Smoking, on the other hand, provides little benefit and at least some detriment, so I don't have a problem with a university banning it from public places. The slope isn't as slippery as you make it sound.
Again, I'm not saying "all 'public air' must be clean or else it's an infringement on my rights", just that I'm fine with the university's decision in this case. But then again, I am not a smoker. If I was, I'd like to think I'd have more curtesy than to smoke where others have to put up with my habit, even if it's pure annoyance and not extremely harmful to their health. I think the proposed ban is sensible, if not a bit overbearing, as smokers should have SOME place to do their thing, just one that the rest of us can avoid with ease. Me: > Notice I didn't say I have a right to fresh air, just that I think it's a reasonable expectation that a walk across the quad won't include inhaling carcinogenic fumes.
If you say that you "expect" to be able to walk in an area and not have to breathe fumes, that sounds an awful lot like you think you have an entitlement to it (a "right"). To state an expectation implies that you would be surprised if you didn't get your way, and that someone who prevents you from meeting that expectation should be stopped.
If think that if you honestly agree with the assertion, "I do NOT have the right to walk on campus and breathe clean air", then the most you can honestly say is that you have a *preference* to walk across the quad and not inhale fumes.
And that's okay - everyone is entitled to any preference or whim they desire. But it cuts both ways - a smoker prefers to be able to smoke outdoors, rather than walk all the way back to their private residence. Why are you so special, that your preference should be catered to, the smoker's preference denied?
> I wouldn't ban lawnmowers or automobiles precisely because they have some utility despite their pollution which sustains the kind of social arrangements you describe. Smoking, on the other hand, provides little benefit and at least some detriment, so I don't have a problem with a university banning it from public places.
And that's where you make a judgement call on personal habits, which gets into the very gray area of saying someone can't do something because you *dislike it*. In essence, moral judgment.
Even though you try to dismiss it, smoking DOES have a benefit - it's a hobby of a lot of people, and when someone chews a wad of tobacco or puffs on a cigarette, they're gaining enjoyment. Obviously you wouldn't enjoy that activity yourself, but why does your opinion matter? Unless you think you get to define what activities are allowed to make other people happy?
> If I was, I'd like to think I'd have more curtesy than to smoke where others have to put up with my habit, even if it's pure annoyance and not extremely harmful to their health.
And I mentioned this at the beginning, but here is the explicit example of what I'm talking about. Even if there's no actual health detriment to you, you'd *still* believe that others have an obligation to act in ways that don't annoy you. Don't you kind of imagine... that asking a smoker to walk somewhere else to smoke is probably annoying to them as well? And since you're perfectly comfortable making that request anyway, aren't you asserting that minimizing your annoyance is more important than minimizing theirs? Again, the same question - why do you think that your personal preferences are more important than anyone else's? Other: First of all, you invoked this notion of “enforcing” the “right to fresh air”, not me. My position is not “all my air must be fresh and this is a right which should be ensured”, as much as you try and make it out to be. You are mistaken to think that “it is reasonable to restrict the freedom to smoke in public” is equivalent to “I personally have a right to fresh air at all times.” This is a false equivalence. The straw man argument of a “right to fresh air” you like to attribute to me is not one I’m actually making myself.
Regarding the intersection of personal preferences and public desires, I do not agree that it “cuts both ways” preicesly because one "preference" negatively affects other people- this is exactly why I take the position that such a ban on campuses is okay. My preference and a smoker’s preference are not equivalent. Smoking negatively affects people other than the smoker (this is not a "gray area"), and for this reason a ban in public areas is sensible. Second hand smoke is harmful (not just annoying). Generally in society laws are established to protect people from another’s harmful actions. I'm applying this here.
Further, I am not making a “moral judgment” whatsoever. I never said nor wished to imply the claim “smoking makes you a bad person” or “not smoking makes me a good person”. My opinion on this matter has nothing to do with morality. The “preference” of the smoker is harmful for others. This is why it can be limited, not just because I happen not to like it. I’m not “making a judgement call on personal habits” and legislating on it, I’m pointing out that it is harmful to others and therefore can be reasonably restricted in public.
I do not intend to dismiss the personal pleasure people take in smoking cigarettes. What other benefit could I possibly be referring to? That personal pleasure is literally the only benefit of the activity which I can think of (maybe you could argue the tobacco industry contributes to our economy or to taxes, but these are not really relevant here).
>Unless you think you get to define what activities are allowed to make other people happy...
What are you even talking about? The basis of my argument is about the tangible negative effects smoking has for people other than the smoker, which justify it’s restriction in the public sphere. I’m not telling people what they can or cannot enjoy, just that if what they enjoy is harmful to others then it can reasonably be restricted in public. Do you disagree with this?
> Even if there's no actual health detriment to you, you'd *still* believe that others have an obligation to act in ways that don't annoy you
I was speaking for myself and, honestly, I can see why you might thing I was getting on a moral high horse here or something. But really, everything that follows this sentence of yours is completely moot because there *are* actual health detriments. This is the crux of my reasoning, not "that it annoys me". Smoking is not just an annoyance. If it was, my position would not be what it is. For the last time, my position is that smoking can be sensibly restricted in public because of the tangible effects it has on people other than the smoker. This removes it from the "it's all just preferences" realm.
As much as you try to make this sound like me imposing my arbitrary preferences on the rest of the world or protecting some fantastical “right to fresh air”, my position is not and never was what you try to make it out to be: that “smoking annoys me personally and should therefore be banned”. It’s one thing if you disagree that the negative effects on others are great enough to warrant a ban, or if you somehow think that the joy of smoking for the individual outweighs the health effects for everyone else, but you are mistaken if you think I’m arguing that since smoking annoys me personally it should therefore be outlawed, and that my opinions just naturally matter more than everyone else’s. Refute my actual argument. I think I've finally made it clear enough. Me > First of all, you invoked this notion of “enforcing” the “right to fresh air”, not me. My position is not “all my air must be fresh and this is a right which should be ensured”, as much as you try and make it out to be. You are mistaken to think that “it is reasonable to restrict the freedom to smoke in public” is equivalent to “I personally have a right to fresh air at all times.” This is a false equivalence. The straw man argument of a “right to fresh air” you like to attribute to me is not one I’m actually making myself.
It's not a straw man argument, and just because I said it explicitly, doesn't mean that you're not still asserting it. I'll build the logical foundation in smaller steps, so if you disagree with any of these statements then the chain is broken and we can talk exclusively about that step:
1. You believe that you should be able to walk across campus without inhaling smoke. (Your quote)
2. You don't think you should have to walk around a smoker in order to avoid smoke inhalation (else you can just do that, and we wouldn't have a problem)
3. It follows from 2, that if you are going to walk somewhere, a smoker should not be in your path (this is the only way to satisfy 1 and 2).
4. If a smoker is in your path, you think an authority figure should be able to forcibly remove them (you support the campus policy)
If all of the above are true, how can you possibly say that you're not asserting your right to not inhale smoke over the right of someone else to be smoking? You claim that you don't believe that it's your right (meaning nobody guarantees you this right to not inahle), yet you still want your government to come in and assert that protection for you, at the expensive of the freedom of another member of society.
> Regarding the intersection of personal preferences and public desires, I do not agree that it “cuts both ways” preicesly because one "preference" negatively affects other people- this is exactly why I take the position that such a ban on campuses is okay.
And again, you're being self-centered. You think a smoker's preference negatively affects other people (it does - even ignoring health issues, it *annoys* people like you, which is a negative effect). And yet, you think your preferences are completely altruistic; you're completely oblivious to the fact that YOUR preference (smokers should go somewhere else) also has a very negative effect: the smoker has to walk all the way off campus to enjoy their activity, and is probably very annoyed. Or, do the feelings of smokers not count?
> My preference and a smoker’s preference are not equivalent. Smoking negatively affects people other than the smoker (this is not a "gray area"), and for this reason a ban in public areas is sensible.
I've already established how "negative effects" both ways, so I won't go into how you naively think that nobody is harmed when you ask a smoker to go away.
Public policy is sensible if the benefits outweigh the negatives, and for that reason it is ALWAYS a gray area - a policy can be a really good idea, a really bad idea, and a continuum of states like "pretty good", "not that great", and "kind of even" in between. You can't deal in absolutes like "smoking is unequivocably bad, so a smoker's preference is always less important than the non-smoker's". Smoking is always BAD from a health perspective, and always GOOD from a smoker's enjoyment perspective, so the question of "is this ban a sensible policy?" comes down to, "is the amount of health benefit gained for non smokers better than the amount of enjoyment and freedom lost by smokers?"
I think smoking bans in a lot of areas is sensible - there is a LOT of health benefit gained from banning smoking in enclosed areas, and I don't think it's too great a cost for a smoker to go outside a building, or sit in the designated smoking area of a restaurant instead of the regular one. Ergo, + a lot of health benefit, - not much loss in freedom = good policy.
I think I've pretty clearly demonstrated how a campus ban on smoking is a much greater loss of freedom than existing bans - it's one thing to take twenty steps to get outside a door, but it's another to spend 20 minutes to walk outside the boundaries of a unviersity campus, and back again.
And on the other side of the debate, I don't at all buy the side of the argument that such a ban would lead to immense health benefits that would justify that loss in freedom, for this one reason: you CAN'T prove that open-air smoking is a serious health detriment to passers-by. And if you think you can, then this should be very easy: find me a published and peer-reviewed study that shows the detrimental health effects of second-hand smoking on the scale that a campus ban proscribes, i.e. that a guy sitting halfway across the quad smoking, or a quarter way, or even 10 feet away from you, is going to cause you significant health effects.
> Second hand smoke is harmful (not just annoying). Generally in society laws are established to protect people from another’s harmful actions. I'm applying this here.
Again, you seem to think that the only "harm" that counts is when it's someone else harming you. Yes, if someone is smoking, it's undeniably harmful to you, to some extent. I'm sure that even if you're a mile away, a smoker is going to put carcinogens in the air, and with enough time and random air currents, a molecule of carcinogen from that smoker will at some point enter your body, and raise your cancer risk by some microscopic percent.
It's also undeniably harmful if a smoker is sitting on a quad, and you come in to assert that he MUST vacate campus in order to continue smoking. You'll have hurt his feelings. You'll have caused him wasted effort and time, to walk off campus and walk back. And you'll have stamped on some of his personal freedom. Those are all, to an extent, harmful actions.
So, who, in this, should society's laws protect? Should it protect you from experiencing health effects due to smoke inhalation, or should it protect the smoker from being forced to restrict his smoking opportunities? If you're being forced to inhale a steady stream of carcinogens and your cancer rate increases 10%, I wholeheartedly vote to protect you from harm. But if you're inhaling a few molecules a year and it leads to zero statistical significance on your health, I wholeheartedly support protecting the smoker's freedom, if only on the principle that I don't want new laws anytime a wacko with a theory about medical science but zero scientific evidence has a thought that worries him.
> Further, I am not making a “moral judgment” whatsoever. I never said nor wished to imply the claim “smoking makes you a bad person” or “not smoking makes me a good person”.
I didn't say that either. Your moral judgment comes from your thinking that your preferences are somehow superior to the preferences of another group (as explained above).
> I do not intend to dismiss the personal pleasure people take in smoking cigarettes. What other benefit could I possibly be referring to? That personal pleasure is literally the only benefit of the activity which I can think of (maybe you could argue the tobacco industry contributes to our economy or to taxes, but these are not really relevant here).
You're completely dismissing it, even as we speak. You say that "personal pleasure is literally the only benefit of the activity which I can think of" as if you're struggling to think of other benefits, because you've discounted that one as irrelevant. Someone enjoying smoking is reason enough to argue that smoking should be allowed (which isn't to say that it should win the argument for that reason alone. Again, it's all a gray area of benefits vs negatives).
>>Unless you think you get to define what activities are allowed to make other people happy...
> What are you even talking about? The basis of my argument is about the tangible negative effects smoking has for people other than the smoker, which justify it’s restriction in the public sphere. I’m not telling people what they can or cannot enjoy,
Of course you don't think this, the point is illustrative. You *don't* think you get to define what makes people happy. Therefore you *don't* get to dismiss someone enjoying a smoke as less important than your health, which is what you've been doing.
> just that if what they enjoy is harmful to others then it can reasonably be restricted in public. Do you disagree with this?
Yes, as mentioned above, I completely disagree with this. Just because it's harmful, doesn't mean it should be banned. Because it can have benefits too. Cars are definitely bad for health, but they have so much benefit (in travel time) that they definitely shouldn't be banned. Open air smoking is also definitely bad for health (minimally so, unless you can cite the kind of study mentioned above), but they it has enough benefit (in the enjoyment of smokers) that they shouldn't be banned either.
>> Even if there's no actual health detriment to you, you'd *still* believe that others have an obligation to act in ways that don't annoy you
> ... everything that follows this sentence of yours is completely moot because there *are* actual health detriments. This is the crux of my reasoning, not "that it annoys me". Smoking is not just an annoyance. If it was, my position would not be what it is.
1. You're completely backtracking on your statement (my **):
> If I was, I'd like to think I'd have more curtesy than to smoke where others have to put up with my habit, **even if it's pure annoyance and not extremely harmful to their health.**
2. As I mentioned before, I don't think you can back up your assertion about the health detriments.
> For the last time, my position is that smoking can be sensibly restricted in public because of the tangible effects it has on people other than the smoker. This removes it from the "it's all just preferences" realm.
So.... if we go just by this statement, it should make things very easy. Your position is completely based on your belief that there are "tangible" health effects of open-air smoking on a campus level.
Therefore, if you can prove that these "tangible" health effects exist (I outlined my criteria above), you have justification for your argument.
However, if you can't prove that there are tangible health effects, you'll have no justification for your argument, and you would not support this ban.
So... prove it, if you can. He never replied after this. And I think he is an intellectual coward for that reason. |
