The Virtue of Vice

There has been a great deal of talk lately, in the House, on this site, and amongst the populous as to upcoming and suggested reforms within the licensing and smoking acts. In brief, the argument falls one of two ways – either in favour of protecting and furthering the individual’s right to do as they please in their private capacity, or conversely, that those who do not wish to indulge in the vices in question have a right to be protected from their ill effects. There is even the position that people need protecting from themselves. As such, it seems a prudent time to reconsider the nature of this question, and delve into exactly what makes some things acceptable, others not, and indeed the very nature of vice.

The term vice implies immorality and sin, no doubt due to Christian influence on our culture, drawing the line of demarcation between what is good and bad, dictating what we should do and what not. Vice encompasses what is bad for us, both morally and otherwise.

It has often been asked whether alcohol and tobacco should be legal at all, or if they are, why “recreational” drugs like cannabis are not. I intend to put forward an explanation. The difference lies in several key areas, the first of which is choice. When preparing a meal tonight I may decide I would like a glass of wine with it, or perhaps as the evening wanes I might choose to relax with a book and a glass of bourbon. The operative word here is choice. I am not compelled to do either of these, I simply opt to on a whim. A glass of red wine regularly has been shown to in fact be beneficial to the heart. When was smoking shown to be good for anything except the undertaking trade?

However as a smoker that choice is taken away from me. At first, I concede, one has a choice as to whether to smoke, but it is a short time until the individual is in the grip of nicotine and no longer can make the same choice as the above drinker does. The smoker is addicted. Whether they want to smoke is no longer a decision to them, they are enslaved. A smoker may argue that they enjoy their pastime, and to this I would say I really hope they do because if they didn’t, they wouldn’t have a choice in smoking anyway. The pleasure they get from smoking is a misnomer. It is not pleasure as most people understand it today, but pleasure as defined by Schopenhauer. This means that pleasure is merely the cessation of pain and displeasure. If the smoker attempts to not smoke, they will face weeks and months of cravings, broken sleep and other withdrawal effects. The smoker smokes not because it is an act that gives them a distinct pleasure, such as for example sex, but because it prevents suffering brought on by their dependency on it. The bitter irony is that they brought this servitude upon themselves. It is akin to a slave being treated well, as opposed to a slave being treated badly. In both cases, they are still in bondage; the only difference is the quality of their suffering. Given that cannabis is some 40 times more addictive than nicotine, it becomes clear why it must be outlawed. Who would opt for a weak master or even a strong master, when the choice need not be made, and they can be their own master? Smoking is slavery masquerading as pleasure.

Even if the smoker chooses to ignore the logic of this argument and in ignorance flees to his position that “It is my life, my body, and I can choose what I do with it” they do not escape. Smoking is a selfish “pleasure” as it infringes on the rights of non-smokers to enjoy good health. If I partake in the consumption of alcohol I am doing no harm to anyone. One might claim alcoholics are an example of alcohol’s negative effects, but alcoholics are just like smokers – they are addicts, and I wonder how many alcoholics there are compared to smokers? One can drink alcohol without being an alcoholic, but one cannot be a smoker (in the proper sense of the term) without being an addict.

Even with the health implications discarded for now, smoking is still inconsiderate. Is it fair that the surrounds of non-smokers should be despoiled, yellowed with the poisonous pall of smoking? Going to the pub entails that I will leave with the acrid scent of smoke in my hair and stained in my clothes. Painfully few establishments properly segregate smokers from their victims. Simply putting no smoking signs on tables does nothing. Smoke does not respect such artificial borders, and will fill the air of the entire building in a manner entirely predictable by the laws of diffusion.

Finally, we must return to the health implications. Even if I do not succumb to an ailment relating to passive smoking, smokers themselves almost certainly will. As such they will expect other people to foot the bill for their care through the taxes that support NHS. This is entirely unfair. Smokers choose to be ill. I do not receive, nor believe I deserve to receive support from the tax system to pursue by pastimes and pleasures. I do not think that the alcohol I enjoy should be subsidised by the State. I do not think that if I choose to take part in a sport fraught with risk such as winter sports, that the State should pay my insurance.

In conclusion of this section of discourse, I hope it is apparent why smoking should, really, be banned, why cannabis thus should remain illegal, and why alcohol is rightfully legal. I will add one proviso to this. If smokers which to continue to smoke then the law should be reformed thus:

• All persons paying tax have the right to choose that their taxes not be spent supporting treatment for smoking related illnesses by the NHS
• Smoking in all buildings be illegal
• Non-smokers have the legal right to demand a smoker leave the vicinity or put their cigarette, cigar etc out, if they feel that they are being the victims of the smoker i.e. sitting downwind of a smoker in a park. • Smoking in houses where there are none smokers be made illegal. An individual may choose to kill themselves, but they cannot pass sentence on others. In any other instance it would be called murder
• A possible compromise would be to use the governments [probably] incoming ID cards to regulate tobacco sales. To purchase such a product would require the buyer to be registered as a smoker, a fact recorded on their card. Then, when they make a purchase the card must be produced, and so the sale can be logged.

This discussion raises a subtler question that transcends smoking. I cited sex and alcohol as pleasures which in themselves are not masters provided one does not become dependent on them. One should guard against over indulgence as the balance between master and slave is not so hard to tip.

So far we have discussed the concepts of pleasure and addiction freely as though we knew exactly what they were and how to use them; I think a little exploration here is justified.

Consider, if one was to remove from one’s life all those things, great and small, that give one pleasure, what would be left? Would we hit a plateau of nihility, of ambivalence to life, or would we sink into misery? I suppose it depends on one’s conception of pleasure and pain. There is one which is best illustrated thus:

=====1Pleasure=====

=====0Nihility======

====-1Pain========

Our experiences day to day affect and determine which state we are in. The other model is a Schopenhauerean:

=====1Not-Pain=====

=====0Pain========

This is to be understood that the natural, base state if you like, is pain, and pleasure is simply the cessation of pain. The latter model seems to make intuitive sense. If I am not “in-pleasure” then I must be in pain. To suppose an intermediate state of feeling nothing, of being blank, seems nonsensical. How is it to be expounded that one can find an equilibrium between pleasure and pain. Mental states are not like numbers, it is surely a category mistake to think of them as such and so envisage positive and negatives cancelling out. Mental states have content, and they are not like each other in any way, in the way that -1 and 1 are reflections of each other across a horizon.

So, we return to our original question. If we stripped away all things that we find pleasurable we should be in a miserable state. Without pleasure what quality of life would we have? One then must suppose that we need pleasure to survive, and so in some sense we are addicted to it, in the same way as the very chemistry of an addict’s brain adapts itself to be dependent on the drug in question. But this itself seems misleading. Is one capable to be addicted to something one fundamentally needs to survive? Can we make sense of the idea that I am addicted to oxygen, water or victuals? Certainly I am dependent upon them for my survival, but addicted to them? Even if it were conceivable that I could be addicted to things I depend on, how would we tell the two states apart? The only logical conclusion I can draw from all this is that addiction can fall into two categories. Firstly, a chosen dependency, that is, becoming dependent on something that one’s survival isn’t naturally reliant on. The second case would be an over dependence on things one naturally cannot live without. For example, an over dependence on food would be gluttony, in the consumption of alcohol it is alcoholism. A general formulation of this principle (in the context for pleasures) is thus: an over dependence on pleasure is licentiousness. This all very reminiscent of Aristotle’s Theory of the Mean.

The Christian concept of vice and virtue was rigid and inhumane. It sought to prescribe exact actions that were and were not acceptable. This is unworkable and only leads to harm when it is enforced. It denies the natural nature of human beings, which as we have seen, is to indulge in pleasure because pleasure gives quality to life, without which, life is worthless. An effective morality is one that is centred in human nature. Much has been written on this subject so I shall expound it briefly. In essence, I believe that what is morally good is that which allows the individual to flourish, to be him/herself and maximize the actualisation of their potentiality, with virtually no restrictions, other than that ones actions are only unjust if they impinge on the quality of other peoples lives. The appropriate response to people who act in such a manner, is however a subject for another essay.

Much of what Christians would deem vice is in fact, then, virtue. For example there is no reason why sex outside of marriage is a vice or sin under our new morality. So long as it is not over-indulged, and it harms neither party, then it is acceptable. Then again, this is the same religion that used to believe that bestiality was a lesser sin than masturbation on the grounds that at least in the case of the former, one wasn’t spilling one’s seed! Of course, the very idea that an all-male group (a bit homoerotic sounding…) of celibate virgins of pensionable age should decide on sexual conduct – something they themselves will never experience – is pure comedy. Also, the Vatican is the only organisation in the [civilised] world where it is considered perfectly acceptable to flagrantly discriminate on the grounds of gender and sexual orientation. If another other body held such views and practices (consider the MCC) they would be chastised and denounced by the law. But for some reason, the Papacy escapes. Maybe it’s because it’s such an old institution, and so, we treat it like we treat unsavoury ideas that old people might utter; that is, we smile, nod, say “That’s nice dear” and then ignore them altogether.

By E Hallam

Copyright January 2006