Controversy surrounding smoking in a community
The case study focuses on the aspects of smoking which is responsible for affecting the experiences of people who are not smokers. The initial rules off Happy Trials provided the smokers an opportunity to light their cigarettes in a number of places like the hallways, lobbies, library, the room for games, and the dining hall. But the non-smokers in the community were not satisfied with the polluted air that was responsible for affecting their health in a significant manner. This led to specific range of dissatisfaction among both the smokers and the non-smokers. The non-smokers were responsible for making a number of demands which involved the restriction of smoking in the premises of Happy Trials such that the environment of the community is fresh and healthy. As per the smokers it is identified as a privacy issue while it is an issue regarding the health and safety of the non-smokers. Moreover these people also demanded serious fines on the smokers such that the extra cost of maintenance for the smokers can be managed effectively. The smokers, on the other hand, also had a number of demands which was related to the various laws that were present in the community in favour of the smokers. The smokers also demanded that a number of people were responsible for having other bad habits and there should be certain activities regarding these aspects. To resolve this ethical aspect, the theories of Kantianism, Utilitarianism, and rights theory related to justice and distributive aspects should be applied.
Utilitarianism
This theory is mainly based on the aspect of morality which supports that people tend to perform the actions that are effective in ensuring pleasure and happiness in their minds. The main issue in the case is regarding the aspects of smoking. Smokers tend to have a significant pleasure during the actions of smoking and will tend to choose for the activities. On the other hand, people not interested in smoking will generally tend to oppose the activity in accordance with the theory of utilitarianism (Everett, and Kahane, 2020).
But the main aspect of the theory is to enhance the making of social decisions which is always directed towards the betterment of society. Thus, it can be analyzed that according to the aspects of utilitarianism that smokers and non-smokers will tend to have a significant level of controversies and only the arguments that are effective for the enhancement of society will be accepted (López-Fernández, 2020). Thus it can be stated that the argument of the non-smokers are mainly prevalent in this aspect as these people are responsible for facing issues regarding health and safety which is significantly negative in the aspects of utilitarianism. The issue faced by the smoker related to privacy is significantly weak but due to the aspects of happiness it is given some priority. Otherwise it would have been an effective decision to stop the smokers from smoking in the premises directly without any discussion.
As per the basic principles important for utilitarianism, happiness is an intrinsic value and will depend from one individual to another as per their choices. The theory also signifies that any actions are right as far as these actions are positive but are wrong as far as these actions are responsible for unhappiness. As per this principle, it can be identified that the actions of the smokers are not right as per the non-smokers and tend to provide these people with unhappiness. But smoking is also a significant addiction that provides happiness to smokers. The third principle of the theory states that the happiness of every person has equal rights and thus the ethical situation should be critically analyzed (Bauer, 2020).
Demands of smokers and non-smokers
Kantianism
As per the theory of Kantianism, it is identified that nothing in the world can be considered as good that has no limitations except the aspects of goodwill. In this case, it is identified that the proposals of the non-smokers are mainly related to goodwill which is significantly responsible for also having some limitations (Zoshak, and Dew, 2021). These limitations are developed due to the aspects of the non-smokers who are responsible for affecting the environment inside the community of Happy Trails. But as per smokers, it is good to smoke and this good tend to have a significant range of limitations. These limitations are mainly related to the issues detected by the non-smokers of the community like the unavailability of a fresh environment, and the extra cost of maintenance for the smokers that have to be borne by all individuals in the community (Rostbøll, 2019). Thus, it can be analyzed from the analysis of the two good aspects by both sides that the good of the non-smokers are mainly goodwill and must not have any limitations as this will is mainly responsible for the positive health of the people in the community (Moggach, 2018).
The theory of justice and distributive rights tend to pose an argument that states that the individuals in the society have a range of duties towards the individuals in need. This theory is mainly dependent on three main principles which are namely fairness, equality, and proportionality (Wienhues, 2018). As per the aspects of equality, it is identified that every individual is equal and their rights must be given equal priority. In the case of the Happy Trials Community, it is identified that smokers and non-smokers are both individuals of the community and tend to have equal rights. Thus it is the requirement of all individuals to ensure that the people in the society are able to get what they need and act with fairness to ensure effective enhancement of these needs (Melin, 2020). It is identified that the smokers of the community require a significant place to smoke as it is their need while the non-smokers in the society require a healthy environment which is also considered as an important need. Thus it is very important to ensure proportional aspects regarding the smokers and the non-smokers such that the needs of both sides can be effectively analyzed.
Thus it can be analyzed from the three theories that smokers and non-smokers tend to have equal rights as per the distributive rights of the justice theory (Bauer, 2020). But as per the theory of Kantianism, it is identified that both smokers and non-smokers tend to have their significant mindset and the will of the non-smokers tend to have effective fairness for the good of the environment and the health of the people (Jafino, Kwakkel, and Taebi, 2021). This ensures that the will of the non-smokers is significantly positive and ensures an effective enhancement in the community. As per utilitarian theories, it is identified that the actions of smokers tend to provide these people with pleasure while the non-smokers are affected by these actions. Thus it is very important for the fair analysis of both sides such that the rights of every individual can be effectively addressed and none of the sides feel rejected or affected in a significant manner.
Thus it can be analyzed from the case that the manager must take a significant range of responsibilities to ensure effective enhancement in the situations and develop a solution that is able to reduce the problems among the smokers and non-smokers in the community. These roles can be explained as follows:
- Decision as per the claims of non-smokers:The manager must tend to address both sides of the issues detected according to the ethical aspects. As per the claims of the non-smokers, it is identified that their proposals are directed towards goodwill and thus the manager must tend to issue decisions that are responsible for restricting the lighting of cigarettes in various locations that tend to affect the environment.
- Decisions as per the aspects of smoking in the community:Moreover, the managers must also think of the significant aspects of Utilitarianism and Kantianism such that the rights and pleasures of smokers are not significantly affected. Thus the managers must try to ensure the development of a specific zone for the activities like smoking such that the environment is not affected and the people responsible for smoking are able to ensure effective pleasure by abiding through the specific laws related to smoking.
- Ethical aspect of manager towards smokers:As per analysis it is identified that some of the smokers were responsible for joining the community on the condition of being allowed to smoke. This agreement was significantly important for the smokers and the managers are ethically not bound to back out of the contract. But as per the analysis of the ethical aspects regarding human rights the manager must ensure that both the smokers and the non-smokers must be given proper facilities as per their requirements. Thus it would not be effective for the manager to stop the smokers from smoking in the premises of the community. But rather the smokers must be provided with specific places where the aspects of smoking can be allowed.
As per my personal views, it can be identified that the personal values of a person are significantly linked with the ethical theories in the discussion. This can be analyzed by the aspect that the personal values of a person tend to have a direct impact on their activities and the people with effective values will tend to abide by the ethical theories that are relevant in the discussion. If the personal values of an individual are strong then this person will be able to ensure the effective value of the desire and rights of the people in their surroundings. Thus it can be stated that smokers with strong personal values will tend to ensure effective maintenance of the various laws set by the managers such that the rights and pleasures of the non-smokers are not affected and these people are not required to suffer from an unhealthy environment. But if the personal values of a person are not strong and unethical then these people will try to perform activities that are responsible for affecting the non-smokers or smokers and can be ineffective for the community as a whole. Thus it is very important for smokers and non-smokers or all individuals to ensure effective enhancement of their personal values such that the rights and pleasures of all the individuals are maintained and no individual is affected due to the specific activities of any other individual.
Reference List
Bauer, W.A., 2020. Virtuous vs. utilitarian artificial moral agents. AI & SOCIETY, 35(1), pp.263-271.
Everett, J.A. and Kahane, G., 2020. Switching tracks? Towards a multidimensional model of utilitarian psychology. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 24(2), pp.124-134.
Jafino, B.A., Kwakkel, J.H. and Taebi, B., 2021. Enabling assessment of distributive justice through models for climate change planning: A review of recent advances and a research agenda. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 12(4), p.e721.
López-Fernández, A.M., 2020. Price sensitivity versus ethical consumption: a study of millennial utilitarian consumer behavior. Journal of Marketing Analytics, 8(2), pp.57-68.
Melin, A., 2020. Distributive energy justice and the common good. De Ethica, 6(1), pp.35-50.
Moggach, D., 2018. Contextualising Fichte: Leibniz, Kant, and Perfectionist Ethics. In Mit Fichte philosophieren (pp. 133-153). Brill Rodopi.
Rostbøll, C.F., 2019. Kant and the critique of the ethics-first approach to politics. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 22(1), pp.55-70.
Wienhues, A., 2018. Life in common: distributive ecological justice on shared earth. The University of Manchester (United Kingdom).
Zoshak, J. and Dew, K., 2021, May. Beyond Kant and Bentham: How ethical theories are being used in artificial moral agents. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1-15).
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
