Is smoking commercial products a suicide

CharlasPhilosophy and Theory

Únete a LibraryThing para publicar.

Is smoking commercial products a suicide

Este tema está marcado actualmente como "inactivo"—el último mensaje es de hace más de 90 días. Puedes reactivarlo escribiendo una respuesta.

1mdbirmingham
Editado: Sep 2, 2010, 4:42 pm

Commercial products like cigars and cigarettes? Smoking meaning doing the act but is not limited to the number of times a day qnd frequency.
Feel free to share your thoughts of smoking?

2reading_fox
Sep 1, 2010, 5:57 am

Philosophy of smoking? really?

Free world, do what you want to yourself. There are social effects though, so consideration of others non-enjoyment of your lifestyle and health implications for family memebers you're responsible for. But I'm really not sure where the philosophy comes into it.

3inkdrinker
Sep 1, 2010, 10:36 am

Never really thought of smoking that way.

I can see your point, but not all deaths are suicide... not even all deaths which are preventable.

I would say suicide has more to do with intent than with prior knowledge. I would imagine that most smokers do not smoke with the intent of killing them selves.

4JGL53
Editado: Sep 1, 2010, 12:01 pm

Exactly. Smokers are generally as concerned about their health and longevity as are crackheads and speedball freaks.

The only issue with smoking is political. Non-smokers right to breath smoke-free air supersedes the "right" of smokers smoking wherever they decide. I think that political reality is becoming clearer with each passing day. And if there is a god I thank her for that.

5mdbirmingham
Sep 2, 2010, 5:36 pm

Thank you for the responses and here is my opinion which seems to be of better relative content to the comment by "inkdrinker."

Inkdrinker: "I would say suicide has more to do with intent than with prior knowledge. I would imagine that most smokers do not smoke with the intent of killing them selves."

Suicide has to do with the intent, true but is or can the intent be thought of as delayed by the smoker? Or does the smoker simply not see the end result effect as direct due to relation of time? Keep in mind that our "causation-events" in life is never a single isolated event, but instead always a series of events; chain-like or domino-like.

Qustions to ask oneself regarding smoking:
-What began one's first try at smoking?
-When does one tend to smoke more frequently than other times?
-What positive effects result from smoking; immediately and/or in longevity?
-Are there any positive physical results that are directly related to the act of smoking? If the answer is yes for pain management the question is what of quantity and/or quality increase towards body tolerance?
-What trauma or pleasant acts do you associate to smoking whether consciously or subconsciously?

When these questions are answered, now ask yourself the original question of if it's suicide? Not all suicides have to be done to cause an "immediate" death as the time span varies for acts, but the key is that it all leads to the same end result; only some more quickly than others. However, the time factor is irrelevant because as was stated, its more about the intent.

Well, if you know that nothing good comes out of it physically then is the intent still there despite being subconscious or latent? One may claim the emotional escape from stress, anxiety, and so forth but I beg to differ that smoking is the only option to cause that relief, avoidance or escape?

Reading_fox: I hope you now see the philosophy behind the topic question? Yes to smoke is a choice of free-will which can lead to new but related venues which I will let alone for now. Every action has a reaction so all of our choices have built in consequences within them.

"Thought preceeding actions"
M.D. Birmingham

6inkdrinker
Editado: Sep 3, 2010, 2:28 pm

"Well, if you know that nothing good comes out of it physically then is the intent still there despite being subconscious or latent?"

See, this actually comes back to my point. I think the intent with smoking revolves around positives people do get from it. Many people talk about smoking "calming their nerves". This would seem to indicate a form of self-medication. That's no different than people who are depressed or suffering from an anxiety disorder drinking too much or becoming addicted to illegal drugs. It does offer good physical results. It helps them to cope with their illness or stress.

ETA:

Some people smoke because it helps them control their weight. This is another positive physical result.

7mdbirmingham
Sep 7, 2010, 12:04 am


When I stated the question of the intent being latent or so it meant that it still exists.

I quote my earlier writings of #5 and focus on the part beginning at "but I beg to differ that smoking is the only option to cause that relief, avoidance or escape."

message #5
"Well, if you know that nothing good comes out of it physically then is the intent still there despite being subconscious or latent? One may claim the emotional escape from stress, anxiety, and so forth but I beg to differ that smoking is the only option to cause that relief, avoidance or escape?"

There is a difference between "positively associated feelings" that people attribute to smoking, but that's all it is; feelings. Those feelings are what the individual associates until the "damage" is irreversibly done and apparently obvious (coughing-cancerous disease). These effects that people get from it are by no means positive. In its earlier stages it can be perceived and/or interpreted as a positive one may get from it; a positive feeling.

Smoking to help control weight is also escape or avoidance, but it does nothing positive for one's habitual discipline or routine that may cause the want for food. This exchange of vices or habit is better thought of as an exchange between two items but choosing that which is not the greater more immediate "evil?"

What makes smoking a truly positive act physically?
What does the act of smoking directly provide for the individual as positive?
(Not what makes it appear to "feel" positive)

8RyanAllen
Sep 24, 2010, 3:26 pm

JGL53: "The only issue with smoking is political. Non-smokers right to breath smoke-free air supersedes the "right" of smokers smoking wherever they decide. I think that political reality is becoming clearer with each passing day. And if there is a god I thank her for that."

I am not certain that I know what you mean by "smoking is political", so a clarification may help.

The only issue I see as being valid regards private property, the extent to which it exists. If their is any conflict about smoking (usually it occurs in public spaces), the solution is not to be found through politics, but through increased privatization. Conflict would be lessened where it is clear who owns the property (say, a park). Only when spaces are public do conflicts arise regarding the use of the space.

The right of an individual to breathe smoke free air, as you put it, is true as far as he owns his body. In other words, his right to his property (his body) is only violated if forced to breathe smoke, not if he chooses to do so. Now if all property is in private hands, then there is no question of political solutions to problems, as each individual or individuals (in joint ownership) may decide whether smoking is to be allowed on the property. Any individual that wants to avoid smoke can avoid properties where smoking takes place. And it isn't black or white: there may be a threshold or limit to smoking imposed by the property owner, such as: only half of the people may smoke, or only a quarter.

If all property is in private hands, the smoker cannot choose to smoke anywhere. He is limited by the decisions of private property owners.

So John might not allow me to smoke in his house. However, if I offer him $10 in compensation he might allow me to smoke. For others, no amount of money is enough.

In a free market, of course, there are a plurality of solutions, in contrast to the monism of government decree. It is likely that insurance companies would discourage people from exposing themselves to smoke, and would take note of where smoking occurs.

See the work of Hans-Hermann Hoppe.

9RyanAllen
Sep 24, 2010, 3:27 pm

Este mensaje fue borrado por su autor.

10RyanAllen
Sep 24, 2010, 3:44 pm

mdbirmingham:
"What makes smoking a truly positive act physically?"

"What does the act of smoking directly provide for the individual as positive?"

Smoking substitutes a more desired state for a less desired state.

When one begins to smoke, the more desired state might be "looking cool", or "not being bored", or "having calmed nerves." The corresponding less desired states: looking uncool, being bored and having the jitters.

When one is addicted the more desired state is that of not going through smoking cessation with all of its uncomfortable withdrawl symptoms.

When one successfully quits the more desired state is health or social approval, or something else (more money, etc). The cessation effects are still felt, but other states are desired more.

I quit smoking cold-turkey and was only successful when I wanted health and money more than the continuing effects of the drug.

Many cannot quit because they desire smoking more than nonsmoking. I know that I did for many years.

To take the analysis further, one might ask:

Why does an individual prefer smoking to nonsmoking?

I think you will get as many answers as there are individuals.

11inkdrinker
Sep 24, 2010, 3:55 pm

#7

You believing those positives to be real or not real doesn't change the way smokers feel about them. The OP was about suicide. I just can't see a person who uses smoking to stay thin, relieve stress, or look cool as consciously or unconsciously smoking to commit suicide.

12RyanAllen
Sep 24, 2010, 5:51 pm

mdbirmingham:
"One may claim the emotional escape from stress, anxiety, and so forth but I beg to differ that smoking is the only option to cause that relief, avoidance or escape?"

It may be the most expedient, the most economical, etc. If an individual continues to smoke they are reaffirming the value each time. If an alternative presented itself, and it was more attractive to the smoker, he would pursue it. The fact that he doesn't implies that there is no better alternative (taking into account the pain of smoking cessation).

13RyanAllen
Sep 24, 2010, 6:18 pm

mdbirmingham:
"There is a difference between "positively associated feelings" that people attribute to smoking, but that's all it is; feelings. Those feelings are what the individual associates until the "damage" is irreversibly done and apparently obvious (coughing-cancerous disease). These effects that people get from it are by no means positive. In its earlier stages it can be perceived and/or interpreted as a positive one may get from it; a positive feeling."

The positive feelings (from smoking) continue even after the smoker is diagnosed with cancer, so my analysis is the same:

Smoking substitutes a more desired state for a less desired state.

If absence of cancer is desired more than the presence of cancer, that may factor into the decision of an individual in regards to whether or not to smoke, given that smoking leads to cancer (it doesn't, but for the sake of argument we can assume so). But it is just that: another factor. The weight assigned to the knowledge of the deleterious effects of smoking may vary from one individual to the next. Not only this, but the quality of such knowledge really matters. There is a difference between knowledge derived from the side of a pack of cigarettes and that which is obtained through directed research of the effects of smoking on human physiology.

In all stages, as you call them, the smoker receives a similar positive feeling. It may also happen that he becomes more aware of the ill effects of smoking, or peer pressure to quit may increase. But the feeling does not change in any significant way.

Knowledge, however, may set in motion certain impulses or drives to stop smoking. The smoker who gains a heightened awareness of his mortality may find it possible to quit when he was unable to before, even though no other conditions material to the decision to continue smoking have changed. This knowledge may even have a subconscious force, in which case the smoker will say: "I do not know why it was easier to quit this time, but it was. I was never able to quit before." Psychology might provide a more thorough explanation of the internal forces involved, but for our (philosophical) purposes an explanation involving want-satisfaction suffices.

14RyanAllen
Editado: Sep 24, 2010, 6:47 pm

inkdrinker:
"I just can't see a person who uses smoking to stay thin, relieve stress, or look cool as consciously or unconsciously smoking to commit suicide."

That is because they aren't!

First, there are much easier paths to take to end one's life. A person who wants to commit suicide may choose the first available option (that is, the first opportunity) if they want to commit suicide as soon as possible. Or they may want to be dramatic and do so publicly (smoking is hardly dramatic). So to intentionally kill oneself by smoking would be to want to commit suicide covertly, in such a way that no one would suspect you of committing suicide. Also it would be inexpedient. If this is the case, then the person's desire to end their life must be very weak or nonexistent, in which case it is not suicide.

Even if their desire to die is very weak, it cannot be called suicide. If a person is depressed and has a weak inclination towards life and sustaining it, they may be careless and die as a result. But if such is the case, it is easy to imagine that the same person would regret their carelessness (this is a thought experiment, dead people don't have regrets). They might say: "I was not happy with my life, but I did not intend to end it."

On the scale of satisfaction with one's life (or satisfaction with the world), suicide occupies the position of the most extreme dissatisfaction. Admitting that there is a range of satisfaction and attendant emotions leads one to conclude that an attitude of being suicidal ought to be reserved for the end of such a scale.

It ought to be noted that when I speak of a scale, it is completely subjective with respect to each individual and cannot be measured. It only plays a role insofar as an individual is faced with a choice of acting or not acting with satisfaction with one's life as a factor in the decision.

So we can conclude that the smoker may express some dissatisfaction with his life, expressed in the act of smoking. To call such an individual act, or even the concatenation of many such acts suicidal is to confuse the matter.

You are correct that intent is important, but we ought to ask what the intent is each time the individual makes a choice. The smoker does not intend to do harm to his body, the harm is incidental (if unavoidable). The intent is to not feel the unpleasant feeling that would result from not smoking. It may also be to feel the pleasant effects of the drug.

Any disease or sickness that an individual inflicts upon himself resulting from a series of decisions to smoke are unintended consequences.

15JGL53
Sep 24, 2010, 9:55 pm

> 8

It would be nice if utopian libertarianism were the solution to the smoking problem - or to anything else for that matter - but the world is too complicated for that.

BTW, either communism or anarchism will likewise never work "in the real world."

16RyanAllen
Sep 25, 2010, 8:01 pm

JGL53:
"It would be nice if utopian libertarianism were the solution to the smoking problem - or to anything else for that matter - but the world is too complicated for that.

BTW, either communism or anarchism will likewise never work "in the real world." "

And I thought this was a philosophy forum. If you care to make an argument, then do so. Simply saying that you prefer "utopian libertarianism", that one system or another won't work, and so on is like the bleating of a farm animal. Animals can make noise too.

I won't address your emotions, as the proper place for such things is in relationships or therapy. But I may address any arguments you can put forth.

17AsYouKnow_Bob
Sep 25, 2010, 9:20 pm

The public health authorities never mention the main reason many Americans have for smoking heavily, which is that smoking is a fairly sure, fairly honorable form of suicide.

- Kurt Vonnegut


I smoke because I'm hoping for an early death
and I need to cling to something.

- "What She Said", The Smiths


18JGL53
Editado: Sep 26, 2010, 10:56 am

> 16

I apparently don't enjoy the high I.Q. that jesus apparently gave you. I can only work with what I have.

I had assumed the smoking issue was settled and thus reduced to a trivial matter now, similar to discussions of sports or fashion, and that nothing is left but to have a little fun.

But if it is a SERIOUS matter for SERIOUS people - only - to discuss, and there are some SERIOUS issues concerning smoking that are yet to be settled, then I apologize for unnecessarily irritating my betters and I shall cease posting on this thread.

Please continue with your important work here on this thread in the service of humankind.

19RyanAllen
Sep 26, 2010, 7:01 pm

> 18

Well I see no need to repeat myself (per what I said in 16). The criticisms here would be the same.

If you consider the matter settled then there is no need for discussion. If you want to discuss something else then it calls for a new thread, otherwise we would be off topic.

20mdbirmingham
Sep 26, 2010, 9:27 pm

Sorry for starting this "fire" and being unable to return soon enough to tend to it.

Firstly message #17 displays very important supportive quotes that were apparently ignored.

In message 14 your statements conflict and contradict within your own writings, namely:
"The intent is to not feel the unpleasant feeling that would result from not smoking. It may also be to feel the pleasant effects of the drug." (But then you follow with this writing) "Any disease or sickness that an individual inflicts upon himself resulting from a series of decisions to smoke are unintended consequences."

Key problem is that you state the intent to "not feel the unpleasant feeling that would result from not smoking," yet you claim the whichever disease or sickness (negative result) to be a resulting consequence of an unintended one. If I were to view this within a Psychological perspective I would "label" this concept you speak of as avoidance.

You seem to have overlooked this portion of my post #7:
"What makes smoking a truly positive act physically?
What does the act of smoking directly provide for the individual as positive?
(Not what makes it appear to "feel" positive)"

This doesn't contain any semantics or word play but you seem to ignore the "factual matter" of what I state. You have yet to truly address this latter portion of my writings but do offer conflicting statements/ideas and answers that only lend a response to my post that is at best partial.

"You don't have to experience something to learn it."
M.D. Birmingham

21RyanAllen
Sep 27, 2010, 6:58 am

>20 mdbirmingham:
In message 14 your statements conflict and contradict within your own writings, namely:
"The intent is to not feel the unpleasant feeling that would result from not smoking. It may also be to feel the pleasant effects of the drug." (But then you follow with this writing) "Any disease or sickness that an individual inflicts upon himself resulting from a series of decisions to smoke are unintended consequences."

Okay, so where is the contradiction? Please elaborate.

>20 mdbirmingham:
Key problem is that you state the intent to "not feel the unpleasant feeling that would result from not smoking," yet you claim the whichever disease or sickness (negative result) to be a resulting consequence of an unintended one. If I were to view this within a Psychological perspective I would "label" this concept you speak of as avoidance.

The act of smoking is intentional and an act of the will, the disease is not.

First of all, smoking is only correlated with disease, not causally connected. So one cannot say with certainty that any act or acts of smoking will lead to disease. The smoker might think that his act or acts of smoking will certainly cause a disease or diseases. Then the smoker is acting morbidly, but on a false belief. It is not the same as jumping off a building, where the belief in the result is correct (unless one believes one can fly).

>20 mdbirmingham:
You seem to have overlooked this portion of my post #7:
"What makes smoking a truly positive act physically?
What does the act of smoking directly provide for the individual as positive?
(Not what makes it appear to "feel" positive)"

I answered this in my post #10 above. Call the following statement C:

Smoking substitutes a more desired state for a less desired state.

Maybe you are not asking the question I thought you were asking. For the smoker who continues to smoke, C must be true, otherwise he would not smoke. "Feeling" positive might be part of the answer. Like I said before, there may be different "positives", just as there are many different individuals in this world. What does the act of smoking directly provide for the individual as positive? Ask the individual.

22mdbirmingham
Oct 17, 2010, 12:17 am

Apologies for the "hiatus" but your post in 21 asks questions that I will answer in order as succinctly as possible:
A) Okay, so where is the contradiction? Please elaborate.
-The contradiction is within the phrase/term "unintended consequences" because smoking doesn't "inflict" anything physically, mentally, & physiologically positive. However this is a basic general fundamental within smoking because what case studies have you heard of smoking providing (or "inflicting") positive progression?

B) The act of smoking is intentional and an act of the will, the disease is not.
-Actually the disease is an indirectly intentional act as it is well known to occur from "secondary infection." Also, common knowledge that nothing good occurs from smoking. (The idea of it relieving stress is actually simply that; an "idea" (better understood as a perception or opinion).

C) Smoking substitutes a more desired state for a less desired state.
-This statement is rather interesting (to me for multiple reasons) but I will deduce it to a more simplee basic factor. Substitutions of a desired state is problematic within the concept the words "substitution" and "desire" present. Correct me if I am wrong or in erroneous use of semantics but I understand the idea of "substitution" to be of some type of omission or replacement and both acts are causations of what's known in Psychology as avoidance. A desire is equivalent to that of a want; not a need. A need is something naturally positively necessary for survival, but a want certainly is not. "You" were existent before the "want" and you will exist after the "want," meaning its not a mandatory need for existence.
Selflessly,
M.D. Birmingham

23AtticWindow
Dic 26, 2010, 2:09 pm

mdbirmingham, "indirectly intentional" looks like nonsense to me. I think this phrase of yours captures the essence of your argument in this post, and I think it's what others are rejecting. Intentional content entirely consists of the reasons for which the agent is acting, not the incidental ramifications of the act (known or otherwise). For instance, I drive to class because I want to learn, I want to maintain my GPA, and I want to earn credits. I also deplete my gas tank in doing this and diminish my wallet by feeding the tank, but I'm surely not driving to class in order to waste money and gas. I am even fully aware that this is a consequence of my action, but, like the health problems caused by smoking, this consequence is merely incidental. I don't think you would maintain that I 'intend' to waste money and gas every day, in any case, this would be a very strange view.