The fifth freedom: Freedom from paternalistic condescension?
I carry a box of cigarettes in my messenger bag. I didn't buy them; I just found them around somewhere. I don't smoke, of course. I keep them to give to people who ask me for them - usually homeless people downtown.
Tonight I did this when leaving a friends' apartment, with my friend Marcus. He was surprisingly offended at this. He contended that this is morally problematic, because it encourages addiction and does harm to the person indulging in the habit. My counterargument is that it constitutes respect for individual autonomy to allow people to make that choice for themselves, that most people know the long-term health risks associated with smoking, and that they are more concerned with short-term gratification - and the pleasant acknowledgment of their humanity that doesn't try to give a paternalistic lecture. Marcus said that in that case, one might as well carry around syringes of heroin for people who ask. I say that there's a balancing test between autonomy and harm, and you have to draw a line. This brings up lots of other issues, like Marcus's love of fast food and my habit of keeping a box of granola bars in my car to give to homeless people at stop lights, and the legalization of different type of drugs... but that's the essence of it. To what extent do we follow the principle of 'doing no harm', even as applied to making choices for others; and to what extent do we follow a principle of individual freedom, even when it leads to bad results? As individuals, as friends, as policymakers? I would argue that 'freedom' almost always means the freedom to do something of which someone else earnestly disapproves; but of course, freedom is not absolute.
Why not leave your own answer in the comments!
Tonight I did this when leaving a friends' apartment, with my friend Marcus. He was surprisingly offended at this. He contended that this is morally problematic, because it encourages addiction and does harm to the person indulging in the habit. My counterargument is that it constitutes respect for individual autonomy to allow people to make that choice for themselves, that most people know the long-term health risks associated with smoking, and that they are more concerned with short-term gratification - and the pleasant acknowledgment of their humanity that doesn't try to give a paternalistic lecture. Marcus said that in that case, one might as well carry around syringes of heroin for people who ask. I say that there's a balancing test between autonomy and harm, and you have to draw a line. This brings up lots of other issues, like Marcus's love of fast food and my habit of keeping a box of granola bars in my car to give to homeless people at stop lights, and the legalization of different type of drugs... but that's the essence of it. To what extent do we follow the principle of 'doing no harm', even as applied to making choices for others; and to what extent do we follow a principle of individual freedom, even when it leads to bad results? As individuals, as friends, as policymakers? I would argue that 'freedom' almost always means the freedom to do something of which someone else earnestly disapproves; but of course, freedom is not absolute.
Why not leave your own answer in the comments!