5 ms·

I feel blessed to live in a world where companies can "get away with" selling products to people who are informed of the risks and choose to buy them. The urge

I feel blessed to live in a world where companies can "get away with" selling products to people who are informed of the risks and choose to buy them. The urge to remove the option for others to behave irrationally runs strong in some, but we mustn't be carried away by ego. “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be "cured" against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.” --C.S. Lewis

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
throwanem 7y ago
"Omnipotent", there, is palming a card.
- TimTheTinker 7y ago
  I think he’s referring to something like a surveillance state - folks in charge who know everything about you and wish to police all your behavior. It’s a great quote from 70 years ago that speaks well to modern politics, but its application to Phillip Morris here seems to be a bit of a stretch to me.
  - throwanem 7y ago
    You may be right, but he still dodges the comparison. His moral busybodies are "omnipotent", while his robber barons are not. I understand why this should be the case - were it otherwise, the thought of living under robber barons would not come off nearly so well - but I see no reason why it should pass without comment.
MereInterest 7y ago
How does this apply to second-hand smoke? I did not consent to have poisonous fumes near me. Second-hand smoke should be considered a form of battery, of which tobacco companies are accomplices and enablers. How does this apply to the misinformation campaign waged by tobacco companies? Their customers were deceived, and therefore could not give informed consent.
- claudiawerner 7y ago
  It also raises questions on the nature of consent, agency, and responsibility in the case of an addicted person who continues their addictive behaviour (with interesting answers depending on whether the person is willingly or unwillingly addicted). It is not a settled question in philosophy to answer that an addict has all the agency (especially to be "informed as to the risks") as others[0]. [0] "There is certainly widespread agreement about the paradigm threats to personal autonomy: brainwashing and addiction are the favorite examples in the philosophical literature. But philosophers seem unable to reach a consensus about the precise nature of these threats. They cannot agree about how it is that certain influences on our behavior prevent us from governing ourselves." From: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/personal-autonomy/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/personal-autonomy/
  - amanaplanacanal 7y ago
    Cause and effect rule all things. We are formed by genetics, experiences in childhood, all of our trauma, and whether we were born rich or poor. It’s not obvious to me that addiction or brainwashing are different in kind from all of the other influences we are exposed to.
    - claudiawerner 7y ago
      Traditionally, following Harry Frankfurt, volitions can be separated into two camps: first-order and second-order. First order volitions are things you just want (such as food). Second order volitions are things you want to want. Someone who only has first-order desires can be said to have no free will. Addiction (and especially brainwashing) are a detriment to second-order desires in that they limit your self-control and take over the second-order desires. Not all addictions are the same, and the fact that some people are able to stop their addictions attests to that. But they are definitely in a "meta" category of desire which childhood experiences and genetics are not. >Consider first the unwilling addict, who is someone that has both a first-order desire to take the drug, and a first-order desire not to take the drug. Crucially, however, the unwilling addict also has a second-order volition that her first-order desire to take the drug not be her will. This is the basis for her unwillingness. Regrettably, her irresistible addictive desire to take the drug constitutes her will. Next, consider the case of the willing addict. The willing addict, like the unwilling addict, has conflicting first-order desires as regards taking the drug to which she is addicted. But the willing addict, by way of a second-order volition, embraces her addictive first-order desire to take the drug. She wants to be as she is and act as she does. >It is now easy to illustrate Frankfurt’s hierarchical theory of free will. The unwilling addict does not take the drug of her own free will since her will conflicts at a higher level with what she wishes it to be. The willing addict, however, takes the drug of her own free will since her will meshes with what she wishes it to be.
imiric 7y ago
> I feel blessed to live in a world where companies can "get away with" selling products to people who are informed of the risks and choose to buy them. Except people aren't informed until laws force companies to tell the truth. Until then the advertising swindle will continue to kill millions. I wish you didn't feel blessed about any of this and rather felt sympathy towards countries that don't enforce the same laws as yours.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
dmos62 7y ago
Thank you. I nodded along with the others, semi-consciously weary, but then saw your quote, and reading it felt alleviated. It's funny how sometimes following the downvotes takes you better places than following the upvotes.
- homonculus1 7y ago
  The things that most need to be said are always unpopular. Of course, things are also often unpopular for being stupid and wrong. But if you always err on the side of leaving people alone, saying something stupid doesn't hurt anybody. So I don't worry about it too much, and I just say what I think.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

throwanem 7y ago

"Omnipotent", there, is palming a card.

TimTheTinker 7y ago
I think he’s referring to something like a surveillance state - folks in charge who know everything about you and wish to police all your behavior. It’s a great quote from 70 years ago that speaks well to modern politics, but its application to Phillip Morris here seems to be a bit of a stretch to me.
- throwanem 7y ago
  You may be right, but he still dodges the comparison. His moral busybodies are "omnipotent", while his robber barons are not. I understand why this should be the case - were it otherwise, the thought of living under robber barons would not come off nearly so well - but I see no reason why it should pass without comment.

MereInterest 7y ago

How does this apply to second-hand smoke? I did not consent to have poisonous fumes near me. Second-hand smoke should be considered a form of battery, of which tobacco companies are accomplices and enablers. How does this apply to the misinformation campaign waged by tobacco companies? Their customers were deceived, and therefore could not give informed consent.

claudiawerner 7y ago
It also raises questions on the nature of consent, agency, and responsibility in the case of an addicted person who continues their addictive behaviour (with interesting answers depending on whether the person is willingly or unwillingly addicted). It is not a settled question in philosophy to answer that an addict has all the agency (especially to be "informed as to the risks") as others[0]. [0] "There is certainly widespread agreement about the paradigm threats to personal autonomy: brainwashing and addiction are the favorite examples in the philosophical literature. But philosophers seem unable to reach a consensus about the precise nature of these threats. They cannot agree about how it is that certain influences on our behavior prevent us from governing ourselves." From: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/personal-autonomy/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/personal-autonomy/
- amanaplanacanal 7y ago
  Cause and effect rule all things. We are formed by genetics, experiences in childhood, all of our trauma, and whether we were born rich or poor. It’s not obvious to me that addiction or brainwashing are different in kind from all of the other influences we are exposed to.
  - claudiawerner 7y ago
    Traditionally, following Harry Frankfurt, volitions can be separated into two camps: first-order and second-order. First order volitions are things you just want (such as food). Second order volitions are things you want to want. Someone who only has first-order desires can be said to have no free will. Addiction (and especially brainwashing) are a detriment to second-order desires in that they limit your self-control and take over the second-order desires. Not all addictions are the same, and the fact that some people are able to stop their addictions attests to that. But they are definitely in a "meta" category of desire which childhood experiences and genetics are not. >Consider first the unwilling addict, who is someone that has both a first-order desire to take the drug, and a first-order desire not to take the drug. Crucially, however, the unwilling addict also has a second-order volition that her first-order desire to take the drug not be her will. This is the basis for her unwillingness. Regrettably, her irresistible addictive desire to take the drug constitutes her will. Next, consider the case of the willing addict. The willing addict, like the unwilling addict, has conflicting first-order desires as regards taking the drug to which she is addicted. But the willing addict, by way of a second-order volition, embraces her addictive first-order desire to take the drug. She wants to be as she is and act as she does. >It is now easy to illustrate Frankfurt’s hierarchical theory of free will. The unwilling addict does not take the drug of her own free will since her will conflicts at a higher level with what she wishes it to be. The willing addict, however, takes the drug of her own free will since her will meshes with what she wishes it to be.

imiric 7y ago

> I feel blessed to live in a world where companies can "get away with" selling products to people who are informed of the risks and choose to buy them. Except people aren't informed until laws force companies to tell the truth. Until then the advertising swindle will continue to kill millions. I wish you didn't feel blessed about any of this and rather felt sympathy towards countries that don't enforce the same laws as yours.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

dmos62 7y ago

Thank you. I nodded along with the others, semi-consciously weary, but then saw your quote, and reading it felt alleviated. It's funny how sometimes following the downvotes takes you better places than following the upvotes.

homonculus1 7y ago
The things that most need to be said are always unpopular. Of course, things are also often unpopular for being stupid and wrong. But if you always err on the side of leaving people alone, saying something stupid doesn't hurt anybody. So I don't worry about it too much, and I just say what I think.