Friday, January 15, 2010
Personal Freedom vs. Societal Freedom
Issues of second hand smoke in relation to freedom have been debated for many years. Smokers believe they have the freedom to smoke when and where they please, while those who do not smoke would argue that they have the right to breathe clean air. The freedom to breathe unpolluted air is a much more important right than the freedom to smoke because, by smoking, you are harming others and infringing on their choice to breathe uncontaminated air, while the nonsmoker is harming no one because their choice to abstain from smoking does not hurt society. Smokers would argue that they are personally being harmed because a freedom has been taken from them, but this is an indeterminate freedom because it in no way benefits society; smoking is actually detrimental to society by harming the health of the bystanders, the smoker, and in turn, the economy, due to influx in medical problems. The action of smoking imprisons the smoker to a habit and addiction, thus taking away their freedom by creating a mental need and desire for something harmful to the body. Although we technically could smoke in public, it is our responsibility to respect the morals of others and not infringe on their freedom to abstain from smoking.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I like this topic and paragraph. So all freedoms which do not benefit society aren't necessary? Should we outlaw smoking if it has no societal value and is harmful to the both the individual and the public?
ReplyDeleteIntroduction flows nicely.
ReplyDelete-The argument I see is that the public health of the whole community is more important than the individual rights.
-There are two topics you bring up 1) smoking in public limits freedom of people who do not want to breath in second hand smoke.
2) Smoking chains the smoker to a inevitable deterioration of the body.
to the second point isn't it a person choice whether to start or stop smoking considering there are many programs out there?
smokers.
I agree with you but I think that your point could be slightly changed. Although the people who do not choose smoke have freedoms;could the people who do choose to smoke simply have more restricting laws? There is a huge tax on tobacco and the government gets a lot of money from that.
ReplyDeleteNice topic and introduction. You make a clear argument that the smoker's action is driven by desire, whereas the bystander is driven by reason. I think that your thesis could also include that we have a responsibility to others' personal health and well-being, as well as their morals and freedom.
ReplyDeleteYour introductory paragraph is very clear. What does society need to do to convince all smokers to be respectful of nonsmokers? How would this responsibility be enforced? Wouldn't this require restricting one's freedom to smoke in public places?
ReplyDeleteDoesn't the smoker end up paying at least their personal debt to society, considering how capitalistic the medical system in this country is? If taxes on tobacco products were put towards medical payments for those effected by secondhand smoke, would that alleviate the smokers' damage to their society?
ReplyDeleteYour thesis states its argument very clearly, and lays out a good overview of the points you intend to use.
This is very well written, clear and an excellent overview of the discussion in your paper. The one snag I have is in your thesis: what do you mean when you say the “morals of others”? It seems that it’s more of a choice and thus a freedom rather than a moral code.
ReplyDeleteI like how clear and concise this is!
ReplyDeleteby saying that we COULD smoke in public, but it is our RESPONSIBILITY not to, are you saying that, though the right to smoke in public is protected LEGALLY, it is our PERSONAL duty not to take advantage of this right? Also, the word "morals" is pretty heavy and multifaceted and i'm not sure if you want to use it in this context if you can't elaborate on it's meaning. It might enhance your argument to draw a clear distinction between legality and morality.
I'm not sure what you mean when you say that the freedom to smoke in public is an "indeterminate" freedom. What do you mean by "indeterminate" in this context, and are "indeterminate" freedoms inherently of no benefit to society?
-Sarah NC
I want a catchier opening sentence. PAZAZZ! I also want to hear the pro smoking side. I know you are arguing against it, and I like how you really tip the scales to yr opinion, but there needs to be some sense of why people smoke. This makes smokers out to be senseless addiction hounds.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Shane about a counter argument. I know it's hard to argue with that but just a counter opinion maybe just so you can prove it wrong, but isn't it the smoker's right to take away their own freedom of clean air?
ReplyDeleteDoes the responsibility for others in our society always take precedent over individual freedoms? Or is this only when someone is directly harming another through their freedom?
ReplyDelete