survey about snus - Moral questioning

[shikitohno]

I have to come in and disagree with the idea that a company manufacturing heroin would be immoral. First off, heroin can kill you, if used improperly. The reality is, most overdoses don't seem to be the result of heroin. Fentanyl in heroin makes it vastly more potent, and is used to cut heroin sometimes. Result: someone dies from overdose. There was also a study that showed most overdoses occurred when the user was taking heroin in an environment they normally didn't. I think the sale of heroin (even recreational heroin) could be perfectly moral, provided there were purity standards, and minors could not buy it.

The government can educate you about the dangers of using a product or service, but it's up to you to choose what to do. Morality is not dichotomous, clearly defined in every instance. If selling a product that causes harm is morally repugnant, we should ban tattoo parlours. A tattoo causes physical harm as it's being done, can result in scarring, can become infected, and can potentially result in emotional harm later in life if the bearer has an extreme change in beliefs regarding something they got tattooed. But we don't, because there's nobody holding a gun to your head, forcing you to get it.

Circumstances can cause something to be morally wrong. For example, if Swedish Match were to say that snus makes you live to 150 years old, that would be wrong. Or if they advertised snus heavily during TV shows watched mostly by children. But simply selling a product that can cause harm isn't morally wrong. It's just the epitome of capitalism.

@Undersökning: I tried looking up Nackademin AB to get an idea of what they do. I came up with a Gymnasium and Yrkeshögskola. Would you mind telling me if either of those are correct, and if so, which department this is affiliated with? Just curious, as none of the programs at the Yrkeshögskola strike me as particularly relevent to the questions here, and the gymnasium seems to only have one that might be relevant, social sciences.

[CivicSI]

so does intent make something immoral or moral?

Intent to do what? Intent to do something immoral?

No, not at all. The outcome is what makes something moral or immoral.

One could have bad intentions in performing an action but actually produce moral effects. Also, one could have moral intentions and ultimately perform an immoral task.

But, we are straying away from the question. The question was whether or not companies that produce tobacco products are performing morally. And the answer is still no. We can compare it to a million different scenarios but it comes down to the production of a product that causes the consumer to want more (addiction). Is it moral for a company to produce a product that directly causes its consumers to need more? Absolutely not.

As far as the guy who was brewing his own beer, more power to you! I think that that would be a great hobby to take up if I had the knowledge and instruments to make good beer :-) And I would have to say that your production of beer, from your explanation, is completely moral. You are producing a product for your own consumption and not with the intent of hooking customers to your product and making a profit.

Heck, growing your own tobacco and producing your own snus is moral. Tobacco companies, whether Swedish Match or RJ Reynolds, bank on the addiction that exists between its products and the user. And that is immoral.

I still think you guys are taking what I am saying the wrong way though!

[weeg3]

so does intent make something immoral or moral?

Intent to do what? Intent to do something immoral?

No, not at all. The outcome is what makes something moral or immoral.

One could have bad intentions in performing an action but actually produce moral effects. Also, one could have moral intentions and ultimately perform an immoral task.

But, we are straying away from the question. The question was whether or not companies that produce tobacco products are performing morally. And the answer is still no. We can compare it to a million different scenarios but it comes down to the production of a product that causes the consumer to want more (addiction). Is it moral for a company to produce a product that directly causes its consumers to need more? Absolutely not.

As far as the guy who was brewing his own beer, more power to you! I think that that would be a great hobby to take up if I had the knowledge and instruments to make good beer :-) And I would have to say that your production of beer, from your explanation, is completely moral. You are producing a product for your own consumption and not with the intent of hooking customers to your product and making a profit.

Heck, growing your own tobacco and producing your own snus is moral. Tobacco companies, whether Swedish Match or RJ Reynolds, bank on the addiction that exists between its products and the user. And that is immoral.

I still think you guys are taking what I am saying the wrong way though!

meh, i just don't agree. i think that other substances and things are just as addicting, but these never come into question. hell, there are plenty of scientific articles on the addictive nature of tv viewing, yet it is as natural a part of mosts' day as eliminating bodily waste. everything that i previously mentioned can be classified as both addicting and harmful. i feel that tobacco gets treated unfairly because - for whatever reasons - it has this stigma attached to it that other things don't get the brunt of.

[CivicSI]

meh, i just don't agree. i think that other substances and things are just as addicting, but these never come into question. hell, there are plenty of scientific articles on the addictive nature of tv viewing, yet it is as natural a part of mosts' day as eliminating bodily waste. everything that i previously mentioned can be classified as both addicting and harmful. i feel that tobacco gets treated unfairly because - for whatever reasons - it has this stigma attached to it that other things don't get the brunt of.

I completely agree with you 100% of the way. I don't understand it either... that is why we have to educate people about snus :-) I think the only thing that is clouding people's judgment is a lack of knowledge and preconceived notions about tobacco. It's VERY difficult to change someone's mind even when the facts are right in front of their face.

I was going to start a whole other argument about how economics is bad for you... but I won't :-) I respect you for being able to continue on after your first few economics classes... because I know I couldn't have done it!

[weeg3]

I completely agree with you 100% of the way. I don't understand it either... that is why we have to educate people about snus :-) I think the only thing that is clouding people's judgment is a lack of knowledge and preconceived notions about tobacco. It's VERY difficult to change someone's mind even when the facts are right in front of their face.

I was going to start a whole other argument about how economics is bad for you... but I won't :-) I respect you for being able to continue on after your first few economics classes... because I know I couldn't have done it!

lol. it's a dirty job, but somebody's got to do it. i switched from engineering and never looked back.

[RRK]

lol. it's a dirty job, but somebody's got to do it. i switched from engineering and never looked back.

I'm sure I'm way off topic here but I think if we started teaching economics and logic in grade school it could make one of the most significant positive changes to our society that I can imagine.

[LaZeR]

I think we should all lock ourselves in an unfurnished room and live on water and some kind of moral nutrients so we can live a moral life.

/Thread

[weeg3]

lol. it's a dirty job, but somebody's got to do it. i switched from engineering and never looked back.

I'm sure I'm way off topic here but I think if we started teaching economics and logic in grade school it could make one of the most significant positive changes to our society that I can imagine.

i actually had some econ when i was in 4th grade. i'm a huge proponent of introducing things to kids early on, because even if it's a bit beyond them (which is subjective, because kids often are more adept at learning than we give them credit for), it sticks for later if they decide to pick it up again. i had algebra in 5th grade, and even though i hate algebra it has never been a problem for me.

[Redbeard]

Morality is subjective. There is very little clearly defined universal morality. It's in the eye of the beholder. For example, many pious religious types find it morally reprehensible to drink. Should their morality be extrapolated to society as a whole? Because this one group finds it morally wrong to consume alcohol, does that make it immoral for everyone? For Orthodox Jews and Muslims (I think, someone correct me if I'm wrong), it is immoral to consume pork. Does that make it immoral for me to eat bacon or ham (or NC style BBQ, ask Sage or some of the North Carolinians about that one)?

What I'm trying to say is just because a segment of society finds a certain act immoral doesn't necessarily mean that society as whole does.

[CivicSI]

Morality is subjective. There is very little clearly defined universal morality. It's in the eye of the beholder. For example, many pious religious types find it morally reprehensible to drink. Should their morality be extrapolated to society as a whole? Because this one group finds it morally wrong to consume alcohol, does that make it immoral for everyone? For Orthodox Jews and Muslims (I think, someone correct me if I'm wrong), it is immoral to consume pork. Does that make it immoral for me to eat bacon or ham (or NC style BBQ, ask Sage or some of the North Carolinians about that one)?

What I'm trying to say is just because a segment of society finds a certain act immoral doesn't necessarily mean that society as whole does.

Like I mentioned before, everyone is straying away from the question itself. Everyone has given out a hundred reasons why Swedish Match is not immoral but I haven't heard a single person tell me why they ARE moral.

You are also confusing the difference between us purchasing products from Swedish Match and what Swedish Match is producing. We are not referring to the consumption of snus but rather the company itself that is producing it.

So, to clear this up, please tell me your reasoning on how it IS moral.

[justintempler]

Everyone has given out a hundred reasons why Swedish Match is not immoral but I haven't heard a single person tell me why they ARE moral.

HUH? Moral , Immoral, Do you have some 3rd option?

The company that is Swedish Match today was a government owned monopoly from 1915 until 1992(?)

[chossy]

Me and my group asks this question since we´re writing an academic paper on the subject.

In this academic paper we discuss the moral and ethical questions around snus and tries to find out what the general view is on the matter.

This isn´t just about the product snuff(Snus) itselft but also about what measures the government has the right to take, agianst the sale of snus.

Is it their responsibility to protect its citizens from harmful products by increasing the tax on snuff, or prohibiting people from using these products in public places such as restaurants, cafes, concerts and football matches?

it is not a citizen's right to decide over their own lives?

We can take a look at other products. Coffee, for example, it is the world's second most sold and purchased product. Again, the sale based on people's addiction. Has anybody the right to say to you that you are not permitted to buy or use coffee due to its characteristics?

Nackademin AB huh?? sounds like a company rather then a school, but regardless.

Who´s morals are we using for a measure?
And why just Swedish match?

Government is already heavily taxing tobacco among many other items like alcohol and gasoline.
What rights do they have to take measures against snus? In this country? What ever the hell they want, and they are ever since the tax hikes in the last years, when they out of nowhere realized "we can tax tobacco nobody´s gonna quit anyway."

Yes Government is responsible to protect citizens from harmful things, hence it´s forbidden to dump the anthrax you have in the pocket on the street among many things. Since the smoking ban of 2004 or 2005 , cant remember now, it´s forbidden to smoke in restaurants and other public places, which is quite nice since I don´t care too much for the smoke.

But banning public snusing? what harm does it do to anyone else?

If governments would tax anything because it´s dangerous in order to keep consumption low ( and they are ) it certainly isn´t because they want you to stop using it, rather a way for them to increase the budget for more funds to squander.

The final question, is it morally wrong of SM to sell snus? No it isnt´, the only immoral institution is the government and it´s 1543 subsidaries who are still allowing this deadly poison to be sold. The last part is a joke, just like the government.

[Ulsterman]

From my point of view it's very very simple.

Snus saved my health and my life.
I enjoy nicotine.

Terribly immoral thing that.

[Redbeard]

Morality is subjective. There is very little clearly defined universal morality. It's in the eye of the beholder. For example, many pious religious types find it morally reprehensible to drink. Should their morality be extrapolated to society as a whole? Because this one group finds it morally wrong to consume alcohol, does that make it immoral for everyone? For Orthodox Jews and Muslims (I think, someone correct me if I'm wrong), it is immoral to consume pork. Does that make it immoral for me to eat bacon or ham (or NC style BBQ, ask Sage or some of the North Carolinians about that one)?

What I'm trying to say is just because a segment of society finds a certain act immoral doesn't necessarily mean that society as whole does.

Like I mentioned before, everyone is straying away from the question itself. Everyone has given out a hundred reasons why Swedish Match is not immoral but I haven't heard a single person tell me why they ARE moral.

You are also confusing the difference between us purchasing products from Swedish Match and what Swedish Match is producing. We are not referring to the consumption of snus but rather the company itself that is producing it.

So, to clear this up, please tell me your reasoning on how it IS moral.

Not sure if you meant to quote my post with that, but, if you did, you appear to misunderstand my argument. What I'm saying is that morality is different to different people. You find their actions immoral and have presented well thought out reasoning for that. I am not trying to argue your point. I am simply saying that, while I may consider other's notions of morality, in the end, they have little bearing on whether a particular action is moral or immoral to ME.

To respond to your argument, I have no moral objections to Swedish Match's business practices based on the information I've seen. Thus, I do not think them immoral. They execute their business in their own self-interest, without the particularly shady practices known to PM or RJR. Neither do I think them particularly moral. I do not know of them attempting to end world hunger, repair environmental damage, or anything else that would be a moral paradigm. Therefore, I would have to conclude that I, personally, see them as amoral. They provide me with a product I desire. In return, I provide them with revenue they desire. There's nothing moral or immoral about it. It just is.

[GoVegan]

Here's a twist for you.

Is it moral for a governemnt to tax snus at a high tax rate, knowing it's citizens will use the product regardless of the price?

This in turn takes away resources from the poorer customers that they could otherwise to buy healthier food. Also on almost a daily basis I see news reports in Sweden of robberies where snus is being taken for resale because the government has made snus into an expensive commodity.

Well said! I would not be surprised a bit if the same thing is happening with smokes in America now. There is a limit to everything and people can only pay so much.