Value Post: Justice

Justice

So Justice is probably one of the most important principles you can know, especially when dealing with value-oriented topics. In many value resolutions you will encounter phrases like “This House believes that (something) is just”. Whenever you talk about Justice, but especially in cases like this it’s important to have some way of talking about degrees of Justice, or in other words of weighing how much/little you have in a given scenario. A good way to do this is to be at least familiar with some definitions of Justice. So here are a couple of good ones. I used the first two a lot in high school as they offer good standards of evaluation, are fairly simple, and come from two credible sources. The other two sets of definitions are useful, (if fairly similar to the first two) and accessible online. Hopefully once I get access to some my old dictionaries I can add to this list, but this is a start.

Aristotle

-giving each his due

John Rawls

- Fairness

The American Heritage Dictionary

-The quality of being just; fairness.

-The principle of moral rightness; equity.

-Conformity to moral rightness in action or attitude; righteousness.

-The upholding of what is just, especially fair treatment and due reward in accordance with honor, standards, or law.

Merriam Webster Free Online Dictionary

-the maintenance or administration of what is just especially by the impartial adjustment of conflicting claims or the assignment of merited rewards or punishments

-the administration of law; especially: the establishment or determination of rights according to the rules of law or equity

-the quality of being just, impartial, or fair

-the principle or ideal of just dealing or right action

A New Year

So I know that last year we never really did much with the blog but I'm hoping to improve on that this year. My plan is to (eventually) start giving weekly assignments to members on various issues, topics etc. I plan to focus these assignments into three major categories: (1) Topics to research/prep arguments for (2) Current Events/Potential topics and (3) Philosophical/Moral/Strategic debate staples (i.e Social Contract, Separation of Church and State, etc)

Anyway, here is the topic from Thursday which we still need a principle on Opp for

THBT: America and the EU should cease all financial, political, and military support to both Israel and Palestine authorities until they reach a peace agreement.

Cost Saving Aspect of Smoke-Free Transition

The cost of smoking is not a simple number; many factors and variables need to be considered. Yet, reducing the prevalence of smoking behavior oncampus can save money, not only for the university but also for individuals and society as a whole. Here's a pure economic standpoint in support of a smoke-free OWU from the practical perspective.

Cleaning and maintenance costs - according to OWU housekeeping, they spend approximately an hour a day cleaning cigarette butts all over campus (library area, residential and academic side). That is, approximately $15 per hour of labor a day. That is, 6 days a week. That is, 36 weeks a year. You do the rest of math. Plus, the cost of the foregone labor where that hour a day could be spent working on other areas of campus (for instance, working on enforcing the policy at its beginning stage after which it should become self-enforcing)

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention puts a $3,391 price tag on each smoker: $1,760 in lost productivity and $1,623 in excess medical expenditures. In addition, estimated costs associated with secondhand smoke's effects on nonsmokers can add up to $490 per smoker per year.

The American Cancer Society reports that employees who smoke have an average insured payment for health care of $1,145, while nonsmoking employees average $762.

OWU serves as a microcosm of the world, therefore these numbers are applicable not only to the employees of the University, but students as well.

OWU is primarily self-insured for the employee healthcare, i.e. most of healthcare costs of employees and dependents are covered by Ohio Wesleyan. Taking all these factors into an account would give us a pretty accurate approximation of cost reductions associated with going smoke-free.

As for changing admission rates, the research done by University of Wisconsin-Madison has concluded that teenagers that are able to predict correctly that higher college costs make future college enrollment less likely, thus facing different expected costs may choose different levels of risky behavior, i.e. quit smoking before enrolling into a university.

And the final thoughts on future admission rates: it is really up to an individual to decide whether a habit dictates the choice of institution or the choice of institution dictates a habit. The desire to want to come to OWU once it becomes smoke-free may be that final push to help the teenage smoker quit.

Enforceability of the smoking ban.

Leaving the moral arguments to the side for a second, we must evaluate the practical consequences the ban might have on university life:

1) Financial Cost.

Many claims have been made concerning the effect the smoking ban will have on our tuition costs. Regardless of whether those are true or false, we must consider some of the additional costs that implementing the ban will definitely have on the students. It would be extremely hard for Public Safety to put the ban into practice without any additional human resources. A reason why the current restriction, stipulating that people shouldn’t smoke at less than 20 feet from the entrance of a building, is not effective is that Public Safety can not afford to charge any of its professional staff members with this specific task. If they hire additional staff members in order to meet the higher demand for policy enforcement on our campus, this will result in additional costs that will most likely be transferred to the students. Thus, even if the claims that the ban will make the health insurances the university purchases cheaper is true, it is still uncertain how the ban will affect the students, because of the high price associated with implementing it. The alternative will be not to hire any additional staff members and simply implement the ban just as well as the current ’20-feet’ rule is implemented, which makes arguing whether the ban is justified a complete waste of time…

2) Policy Implementation.

Regardless of whether Public Safety hires more personal or not, we must consider the other problems on our campus they are facing on a daily basis. If the public safety officers are instructed to prioritize implementing and sanctioning the smoking ban, this will compromise their ability to deal with unquestionably more serious issues on our campus – student violence, alcohol poisoning, illegal drugs, safety issues, etc. As a Residential Assistant I know that you often have to wait for 5-10 minutes when you need the assistance of a Public Safety officer on Friday and Saturday nights. Here it is time for everybody to decide whether it would be prudent to implement a policy that might elongate this waiting time to 10-15 minutes, only because the Public Safety officers were too busy documenting students that were smoking on the street.

3) Safety Issues.

What alternative are we leaving the smoking community? It is the stated opinion of many people that they will not stop smoking regardless of whether the ban is passed or not. Considering the resoluteness of the smoking community to change their habits, it is important to consider what people might end up doing in order to avoid the restrictions imposed on them. Left with no alternative, a person might decide to smoke in his room. For the purpose he would simply disattach the fire alarm and put towels and duct tape around the door. As far as fire safety is concerned, the above actions create a danger much greater than the danger that second-hand smoking currently poses on this campus. What other alternatives do the people have? Maybe instead of hiding in the room, a person would prefer to go off campus and enjoy a smoke there. It has been the stated policy of WCSA that we should do our best to keep the students on campus in order to ensure their safety. This was precisely the reason why ‘Dan’s Deli’ was allowed to operate within the limits of the campus. However, if by passing the ban we will force a student that was planning on enjoying a few beers on campus to go to the bars simply because once there he can always go out on the street and smoke as much as he wants to, then the student government is clearly contradicting one of its stated purposes. It is the stated goal of WCSA to keep the students safe. This is the very reasoning behind the smoking ban in the first place. However, both of the scenarios described above (hiding in your room; ‘partying’ off campus) actually put students at much greater danger than the danger they are currently facing because of second-hand smoke on the campus. Thus we have to exercise of dose of skepticism when considering the effects the ban.

Litter Reduction and the Environment

Everybody knows the dangers that smoking poses to both the smoker and those who breathe the air they pollute, but equally important are the dangers it poses to the environment.

The same 4,000 chemicals that harm both smokers and nonsmokers are released into the air, contributing to not only local, but global air pollution.

But it doesn't stop there.

Unfortunately, many smokers have the bad habit of not disposing of their butts (cigarette butts, that is) properly. Thus, the butts are left to decompose into the soil, which will take an average of 25 years. The aformentioned chemicals and additives leach into the ground and poison plants and the animals that consume them by mistake. Besides, it makes the campus less attractive and constitutes a severe fire hazard in dry weather.

Choice Framework

There are two rights being weighed here: the freedom to choose to smoke, and the freedom from smoke and its harmful effects.

The first is an active right: it involves the choice to actively engage in smoking. The second is a passive right: it involves the freedom to a certain state of being, that is, to a smoke-free surrounding.

All individuals have the active right to smoke, but this right is limited by the condition that it does not infringe on the rights of others; in this case, that it does not infringe on others' right to a smoke-free environment.

The passive right supersedes the active one because the execution of the latter, by necessity, invalidates the former; that is, by exercising the right to smoke, the realization of the right to a smoke-free surrounding is made impossible. (To picture this, imagine the Jaywalk at 8:53 AM on a Wednesday morning. With half the school on its way to class, smokers in the crowd make it impossible for non-smokers also heading to class to remain in a smoke-free environment.) The quantity of smoke is irrelevant; the right to a smoke-free environment is unconditional, since it represents a negative effect on an individual who does not wish to smoke.

On the other hand, although the execution of the active right infringes on the passive one, the preservation of the right to a smoke-free environment is not dependent on the absolute negation of the right to smoke. The act of smoking itself does not affect the right to a smoke-free environment; the act of smoking around non-smokers does. Therefore, the preservation of the passive right does not necessarily require the invalidation of the active right, but does require effective implementation of certain restrictions.

If we accept that the OWU administration is obligated to preserve the passive right, then a smoking ban would accomplish that goal and would be justified in that regard. However, a ban would also negate an individual's freedom to smoke, so it would be infringing on some rights while upholding others. While the right being preserved no doubt has precedence as the passive right, its preservation itself is not dependent on an absolute ban but on effective restrictions.

Health: Nonsmokers and Smokers

Fundamentally, there is one big reason why people protest smoking both on campus and everywhere else in the world: its dangerous. Cigarettes have long been known to be a health hazard. As early as the 1970s the United States has been putting surgeon general warnings on all packages of cigarettes, informing people of the dangers they bring. Ingredients in cigarettes include rat poison, known carcinogens and an ingredient found in napalm. This leaves little question as to whether cigarettes are harmful to a person’s health, the answer is clear: yes they are harmful, both to the smoker and those around them.

But to some this doesn’t matter. They say that smoking is a personal choice, and one that must be respected. There is however, a point at which the government is obligated to step in. When someone’s actions endanger themselves or someone else it is the duty of the government to step in. As the idea goes someone’s freedoms can exist unrestricted up till the point when that freedom infringes upon someone else’s rights. To use the classic example this is why someone can’t shout fire in a crowded theater, for while an individual does have a right to freedom of speech using it in that way endangers the lives of others, making it a dangerous and immoral act. This is why government sets law in place to protect the rights of other citizens.

What does this have to do with OWU? Well look at it this way: OWU is in effect a ruling body, much like a government, which has a responsibility to protect students. Currently, this isn’t happening. Presently students who smoke are asked to do so at least twenty feet from the building, but lets face it they don’t. Just the other day I was walking out of the main doors at Smith and practically ran into a student smoking, right there on the step. This person couldn’t have been more then a foot away from the door, and I got a lovely face full of smoke because of it. Ahh the joys of second hand smoke. I had just been exposed to a garden variety of toxins because this individual chose to smoke. Second hand smoke can be just as dangerous as actual smoking if there is continued exposure. While I doubt I will ever inhale so much second hand smoke to suffer consequences from it I still do not appreciate having someone else infringe upon my right to a healthy smoke free life style. Because second hand smoke is dangerous, and exposing student to it unwillingly violates their right to a healthy smoke free life style, OWU should enforce a ban on smoking.

Furthermore the need to protect the health and rights of non-smokers is already being recognized in society. I’m originally from Ohio, and a few years ago now Ohio passed its own smoking ban prohibiting smoking in public places. Now obviously since OWU is a private institution that doesn’t apply here, but logic behind it does. OWU is a community, or society unto itself. Right now public places on campus, where everyone comes and goes, can be smoked in. This inherently infringes on the rights of students to live healthily smoke free lives, by putting toxic smoke in areas where they have to be (for example the Jaywalk).

I’d like to conclude with a cost benefit analysis. If OWU enforces this ban on smoking, students will be able to live and learn in a healthily and safe environment, but be unable to smoke. On the other hand, allowing the status quo to continue endangers the health of many, smokers and non-smokers alike, but allows students to freely smoke. When weighing the health of our student body against the right to a dangerous choice made by a few, but which affects everyone, the answer is clear. The health of all students, smokers and nonsmokers alike, is more important then letting students smoke on campus.