survey about snus - Moral questioning

[Undersökning]

Is it morally right of Swedish Match to build a company's operations, on people's snuff addiction?

yes? no? why?

Please share your opinions!

[tom502]

Yes, of course. It's a product people want, a legal product, and one with negligible health concerns, and SM works hard to make a quality product. Should Krispy Kreme morally make donut chains to sastify people's craving for donuts, with the natons high diabetes and obesity rates?

[Undersökning]

Yes, of course. It's a product people want, a legal product, and one with negligible health concerns, and SM works hard to make a quality product. Should Krispy Kreme morally make donut chains to sastify people's craving for donuts, with the natons high diabetes and obesity rates?

I get your point. And you can make the same argument for coffee. The question is if it´s morally justified to sell snuff(snus) to generally helthy people.

[tom502]

Is it morally justified to sell beer to healthy people? What about Big Macs?

The issue is, to me, even if it was cigs, it's a legal item adults want to use. A company seeks to supply this. With snus specifically, I could argue it is a moral act to make it and sell it, as it's health concerns are debateable, and it has helped many not smoke, which does have known health issues.

[beja]

I would say yes. Reason being that addiction comes in many forms. If SM were morally wrong, we'd also have to include video game, computer, clothing, snack food, mobile device and many other manufacturers in the list. The difference is that there isn't the public stigma surrounding these other addictions.

[RRK]

Re: survey about snus - Moral questioning

On the contrary, I think any prohibition is unethical.

No one's life, liberty or property are safe while the legislature is in session.

[MojoQuestor]

Chalk me up as another who prefers options, where people can freely exercise their personal choice, rather than taking away their ability to choose.

People should be protected from harm, but having snus for sale still requires me to act, i.e. if it harms me, I did it to myself. There is a debate about this but for the most part, availability does not equal compulsion.

Walking around throwing acid on ppl or forcing them to smoke at gunpoint should probably remain illegal, however.

[LaZeR]

Chalk me up as another who prefers options, where people can freely exercise their personal choice, rather than taking away their ability to choose.

People should be protected from harm, but having snus for sale still requires me to act, i.e. if it harms me, I did it to myself. There is a debate about this but for the most part, availability does not equal compulsion.

Walking around throwing acid on ppl or forcing them to smoke at gunpoint should probably remain illegal, however.

This +1

[shikitohno]

I think that as long as it's not being forced on you, there's really no issue. It's like asking if it's morally wrong for a dealer to sell drugs to someone who's never used them, but asked for them without being prompted. It's a product that people want, in the case of snus, it's legal, and people generally don't come into it thinking that snus will be good for them. It's adults making a choice of what they want to do.

[sagedil]

Umm, welcome to Snuson Undersökning.

Why are you asking?

[Snusdog]

Two problems:

First, your survey has not established what constitutes an addiction. As beja demonstrated the notion of addiction may be expanded to the point of becoming so inclusive that it becomes non-descriptive as a category. You have not defined your term but only assumed it.

Second, your survey assumes that all addictions by default are morally wrong. However, to assume this utterly begs the question that your survey seeks to answer. In other words, your survey assumes the answer to the survey in order to even pose the question. The real survey question should be: are all addictions morally wrong?

If all addictions are morally wrong then promoting them is morally wrong. If no addiction is morally wrong then promoting any one of them is not morally wrong. If only certain addictions are wrong then it is morally wrong to promote only those. You cannot assume the main component of your question if your question is to have any meaningful answer. As it stands now your survey will yield only emotive results at best.

However, before we enter the long and tortuous debate over addictions, I think we may be able to find the resolve we seek by looking at the question from another perspective: that being the notion of “risk”.

Most, if not all, activities that we do involve a degree of risk.

The moral question then is twofold

One, are those risks clearly and accurately stated (thus big American tobacco’s concealing the risk of cigarettes, manipulating the chemical properties of the product, and using ads and legislation to perpetuate the dishonesty is morally wrong)

Two, do the risks unfairly burden others who are excluded from the risk taking decision (Thus, driving drunk, driving at “reckless” rates of speed, or keeping a live puma in your New Your City apartment- all place others at risk without those others having a say so in the risk taking. Note this same principle extend beyond the risk of physical harm. Thus a foolhardy act may well put dependents or society at an undue financial risk without giving them a voice in the risk taking decision).

In the case of snus, it does not violate either of our two risk factors and therefore its sale is not in and of itself immoral, any more than selling a pair of skies might be.

Hope this helps

:idea:

[Fightin Phils]

With all of the people that have been able to quit smoking by using snus, I can't see how its morally wrong.

[chainsnuser]

Why are you asking?

+1

Someone who hasn't contributed anything to this forum shouldn't expect others to debate a delicate philosophical question just for his or her fun. Undersökning, you should at least tell us a bit more about yourself and about your motivation to ask this question.

Cheers!

[RRK]

The moral question then is twofold

One, are those risks clearly and accurately stated (thus big American tobacco’s concealing the risk of cigarettes, manipulating the chemical properties of the product, and using ads and legislation to perpetuate the dishonesty is morally wrong)

Two, do the risks unfairly burden others who are excluded from the risk taking decision (Thus, driving drunk, driving at “reckless” rates of speed, or keeping a live puma in your New Your City apartment- all place others at risk without those others having a say so in the risk taking. Note this same principle extend beyond the risk of physical harm. Thus a foolhardy act may well put dependents or society at an undue financial risk without giving them a voice in the risk taking decision).

Great post. My only problem is with the first part of your risk assessment. I believe that non disclosure is not in itself immoral. Only when the producer makes untrue statements about its product would it become immoral in my opinion. It should be the buyers decision as to how much information he/she requires.

[sagedil]

Why are you asking?

+1

Someone who hasn't contributed anything to this forum shouldn't expect others to debate a delicate philosophical question just for his or her fun. Undersökning, you should at least tell us a bit more about yourself and about your motivation to ask this question.

Cheers!

Exactly. I can't believe that no one else commented that someone who had never posted came in here and posted like that.

I didn't want to be rude, but a bunch more explanation was due.