Should one encourage or discourage people to quit smoking?

[PsYcHo]

If successful, it could put this person in a new frame of mind, mainly "I can change, and change can be good!"

Now this person feels better and open to changing his lifestyle. It's not scary anymore! Maybe he would consider changing other aspects of his life that are harmful to him, and harmful to other beings......

That's an excellent point. I wonder if people who quite smoking successfully are more likely to make other positive life changes on that momentum.

Without going into detail, I had a substance addiction for about 5 years in my youth. (You don't get nick-named Psycho for passing out bible-school pamphlets.) Tobacco has similar effects on your brain and body as "hard" drugs. It's just more acceptable in public. After a long fight, I changed that single aspect of my life. Permanently. Since then, (over 12 years now) my entire thought process has changed. Instead of just doing enough to get by, I started trying to excel at everything I do. I also stopped being afraid of change, and more open to new ideas. All addictions are just a crutch, and once you learn to walk without them, your realize you can walk anywhere. ( 'course that's just my opinion, I could be wrong)

[ThinkAboutThis]

We could even say chronic overeating, or eating large amounts of meat is "suicidal", since people know it's self destructive and disregard that harm. We talk about reckless people being "suicidal".

I still don't think 'suicide' would be the appropriate word choice. It's a contextual thing, if the person willingly does something (i.e. eating a load of meat) with the intended consequence being death --- that would be suicidal. However, if the person does not desire that consequence (death), it's just careless behaviour.

Also, kind of how every action movie talks about "suicide missions"; the point is not really to kill themselves, but it's like likely outcome and is accepted as such in order to achieve another goal.

A suicide mission is more of a figure of speech, it doesn't necessarily correspond with the literal definition of 'suicide'.

Likewise, suicide bombings aren't simply meant to kill oneself, but cause maximum carnage.

The motive of the "suicide" bomber is irrelevant here. If the person willingly wanted to die, then it would be suicide. However, if the person was forced into doing it, and had no intention of dying --- it wouldn't be suicide.

----------------------

Perhaps encouraging suicidal meat-eaters to kill themselves would be more worthwhile?

Also, how do you add the "ThinkAboutThis wrote:" to your quotes?

[ThatNerdyScienceGirl]

Am I the only one who finds this a little bit sociopathic? "Let's commit indirect harm towards people who do indirect harm towards animals" really, what will make us any better?

[miniboes]

Psycho makes a very good point indeed. I have a number of objections myself.

I think encouraging people to smoke is definitely a bad idea. Don't forget opportunity cost; you could also invest that time into encouraging people to consume fewer animal products, which is way more productive. For many people convincing them to smoke is probably harder, and even if it is not it's a way less effective strategy.

Not encouraging people to stop smoking is, perhaps less obviously than I thought, also not a very good idea. We're dealing with a highly addictive habit here, and we can not assume we can keep smokers from causing second-hand smoke. We also need to take into account the suffering an earlier death causes. I think it's fair to state that the older someone is, the less suffering will be caused by their death. For instance, my grandmother is over 90 years old, therefore, my family is totally prepared for her to die. If she had died at age 65 it would have been a far tougher pill to swallow.

Also, I assume somebody with lung cancer will, despite dying relatively quickly, be hospitalized and receive painful and expensive treatment. Even if this treatment is less extensive than a treatment for other types of cancer, it is wasted effort and unnecessary suffering nonetheless. The argument that the person brought this upon himself is true to an extent, and that may make the point that the patient suffers irrelevant. However, one could argue that by not discouraging the person or confronting him with the dangers of smoking, which he might not be totally aware of, you are partly responsible for his or her suffering. I would compare it to somebody holding a gun and about to pull the trigger, not being aware of it being a gun, and you were not alerting him of the fact it is a gun or trying to talk him out of pulling the trigger. Surely you would then be partly to blame for his suffering or death.

If you do not accept that one might be partially responsible for the suffering of a smoker because one did not discourage the smoker from smoking, there is another important point here: medical costs, certainly in Europe, are not just paid for by the patient. Because of the way healthcare insurances work, all inhabitants of the country end up paying for the medical costs of smokers.

There's also the point of activism strategy. Surely if vegan activists were to take a "smoke, don't smoke, whatever" or worse, a "thank you for smoking" stance on smoking that would not resonate well with most of society. I also think it might reduce how seriously people take the health argument for veganism. A response akin to "You're telling me I should stop eating meat because I'd be healthier, but encourage/don't discourage people from smoking" would be probable, and frankly not unwarranted. Perhaps we can get away with simply not discouraging people from smoking, but encouraging people to smoke would surely hurt the vegan movement's image.

Edit: NerdyScienceGirl makes a good point as well; this, even if not sociopathic, might come across as such and thereby hurt the image of vegan activists.

Edit 2: Storytime. This is vaguely relevant:

In the Netherlands, by far the most famous vegan is Volkert van der Graaf. The only one who comes close to his level of fame is the parliamentary leader of the Party for the Animals. Volkert van der Graaf is known for assassinating Dutch populist politician Pim Fortuyn. He had a history of activism for animals and environmentalism. He suffered from obsessive-compulsive personality disorder, was highly intellectually gifted, and probably had Asperger's syndrome. He is probably one of the most hated men in the Netherlands. I, as somebody who has in the past been diagnosed with a light form of Asperger's, as somebody who is intellectually gifted, as a vegan, am in rather infamous company. Therefore, I would be extremely careful to show behaviour that comes across as sociopathic, that indicates I might be willing to allow the suffering of humans in favour of an uncertain utility for the well-being of animals.

[PsYcHo]

Am I the only one who finds this a little bit sociopathic? "Let's commit indirect harm towards people who do indirect harm towards animals" really, what will make us any better?

Nope. But hey, thanks for classifying it a sociopathic, instead of PsYcHopathic! ( I coulnd't help myself!)

[brimstoneSalad]

I still don't think 'suicide' would be the appropriate word choice. It's a contextual thing, if the person willingly does something (i.e. eating a load of meat) with the intended consequence being death --- that would be suicidal. However, if the person does not desire that consequence (death), it's just careless behaviour.

It might be clearer to call it negligent suicide (suicide that comes about by negligence rather than intent), although suicide itself isn't really even a crime.

Compare to negligent homicide: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negligent_homicide
(which is still called homicide despite it being unintentional)

Or even: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depraved-heart_murder
Since they know this behavior will probably result in their deaths, and don't care enough to stop it.

A suicide mission is more of a figure of speech, it doesn't necessarily correspond with the literal definition of 'suicide'.

Suicide means self-killing, only this is clear to me, the influence of intent may be important, but this is less clear to me.

You may be right here, but then we could also be wrong in calling the suffering animals experience at the hands of humans "torture", since torture is causing pain to another to certain ends (as punishment, to extract information, or compel behavior), and animals are only "accidentally" being harmed as a side effect of animal agriculture, and not for a purpose in itself as in torture proper. And yet, commonly, it would seem acceptable to call it torture.

Incidentally, waterboarding isn't torture either, since it's not technically painful (it stimulates a very unpleasant state of panic, but no actual "pain").

The motive of the "suicide" bomber is irrelevant here. If the person willingly wanted to die, then it would be suicide. However, if the person was forced into doing it, and had no intention of dying --- it wouldn't be suicide.

They're not forced into it, they choose it as a way to maximize damage (and get a reward). They don't think they're killing themselves so much as going to a martyrs heaven. But I'm sure many would prefer to miraculously live to carry on with Jihad.

Also, how do you add the "ThinkAboutThis wrote:" to your quotes?

In the quote tag, you add ="ThinkAboutThis"

Like this:

Code: Select all

[quote="ThinkAboutThis"]
Stuff
[quote]

[brimstoneSalad]

Am I the only one who finds this a little bit sociopathic? "Let's commit indirect harm towards people who do indirect harm towards animals" really, what will make us any better?

I definitely wouldn't encourage people TO smoke, which would be harmful. But leaving it alone and letting them decide for themselves (since they have the information) wouldn't be harming them more.

PsYcHo makes a compelling point (and thanks for the story, PsYcHo, that's inspiring), but it's not clear to me that activism directed to that end would be time or cost effective either, since I'm not sure how many people respond that maturely to overcoming addiction and use it as a motivator in life (and it's hard work to get somebody to quit smoking as it is).

Anyway, although I wouldn't advocate it, let's say we were, and explore if your question is relevant:

"Let's commit indirect harm towards people who do indirect harm towards animals" really, what will make us any better?

Providing at least that you didn't lie to the smoker (or non smoker to encourage him or her to smoke), the choice to smoke was a choice. A choice, given all of the information (informed consent) to harm oneself is very different from being harmed against one's will as is the case with the animals harmed and killed for meat.

“They tell us that Suicide is the greatest piece of Cowardice... That Suicide is wrong; when it is quite obvious that there is nothing in this world to which every man has a more unassailable title than to his own life and person.”
― Arthur Schopenhauer

I don't quite agree with that, because the choice to harm oneself is often indirectly harmful to others (particularly when young, or when one has responsibilities), but that's not necessarily the context of a smoker's death, which will usually happen more near the end of his or her economic utility and social obligation, before the onset of chronic disease which presents as a burden on society (particularly for somebody who has not been eating healthfully). In some cultures, suicide by elders who can no longer contribute more than they drain is considered courageous and honorable.

Provided we are possessed of all of the correct information and of sound rational mind, we are incapable of acting against the sum of own interests. So, no, you probably can't really talk a person into harming his or herself unless you lie, use bad reasoning, or prey on an acute psychological vulnerability. It's not comparable to eating meat and participating in animal cruelty, since farmed animals don't have a choice in the matter and their interests are certainly harmed.

That said, I still don't agree that we should be doing that (talking people into killing themselves).

[ThatNerdyScienceGirl]

Am I the only one who finds this a little bit sociopathic? "Let's commit indirect harm towards people who do indirect harm towards animals" really, what will make us any better?

Nope. But hey, thanks for classifying it a sociopathic, instead of PsYcHopathic! ( I coulnd't help myself!)

[PsYcHo]

You, madam, have moved beyond a nod of the head in your direction.

I take a knee and bow, for you have earned my devotion!

[PsYcHo]

Am I the only one who finds this a little bit sociopathic? "Let's commit indirect harm towards people who do indirect harm towards animals" really, what will make us any better?

I definitely wouldn't encourage people TO smoke, which would be harmful. But leaving it alone and letting them decide for themselves (since they have the information) wouldn't be harming them more.

"Let's commit indirect harm towards people who do indirect harm towards animals" really, what will make us any better?

Providing at least that you didn't lie to the smoker (or non smoker to encourage him or her to smoke), the choice to smoke was a choice. A choice, given all of the information (informed consent) to harm oneself is very different from being harmed against one's will as is the case with the animals harmed and killed for meat.

Is it always informed consent? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4c_wI6kQyE . Bit of an extreme example, but if you have the free time https://www.tobaccofreekids.org/researc ... f/0127.pdf.