Decision Making Seen Through Thank You For Smoking By Jason Reitman
Questioning whether it is ethically right to defend something like tobacco sounds useless since we know the health consequences that come from smoking but the question is necessary. The film Thank You For Smoking touches on the topic of right and wrong. Instinctively, we would assume that taking the side of the tobacco lobbyists would be the wrong thing to do as it would seem like we’re disregarding the health effects of it but there are a few ways to justify taking that stance on the subject. The explanation of your decisions is what determines if what you did was right.
In the film Thank You For Smoking Nick Naylor is defending smoking not for his love of smoking but
…show more content…
You will always be right if you can prove that the other option is wrong and you can explain why it is right to do what you did. Kidder’s dilemma paradigms can help us understand Nick’s decisions in the film. It must be understood that he is focused on doing what’s right for himself as a professional but also as a father to a young son. The choices he makes as a tobacco lobbyist may cause people to doubt his ability to be a responsible father but he is showing that he understands what the right choice is for the situation. Taking in consideration "truth vs loyalty," throughout the film it is clear that Nick is staying loyal to his boss and his job even though he has much like the rest of America 's population had education showing the dangers of smoking. This is the right decision because telling the absolute "truth" about smoking would ruin his career to a certain extent and that would make it hard to provide a good life for his son. As previously mentioned, his decision to keep defending smoking is allowing the "community" to keep their freedom of choice. The paradigm of "individual vs community" is very utilitarian oriented, he is willing to seem like a irresponsible person to the eyes of people who do not understand that he is preserving their freedom. The paradigm of "justice vs mercy" is also shown
Analysis of Peter Brimelow's Thank You for Smoking. Growing up with a best friend who has been smoking since middle school, I have seen many of the negative effects it has on a person. Football was a passion and way of life for Andy; however, smoking caused him to struggle with breathing while running up and down the field. He would cut down on his daily amount of cigarettes before and during the season, but cutting down was little help for him. Not only was his breathing affected by smoking, but he also had yellow teeth, a smoker’s cough, and would get “the shakes” when in need of a smoke.
In Thank You for Smoking, the angle of the frame often implies a sense of superiority or the sense of helplessness by an obviously superior force. Nick Naylor, Chief Spokesperson of The Academy of Tobacco Studies, explains to the audience that his job is to convince his clients, the busy, tired, and traveling that smoking is, in fact, an action that one should take part it. During Naylor’s narration, the viewer is exposed to a high angel shot scanning directly over a crowded, packed plane, implying Naylor’s sense of superiority to his clients. Naylor is aware that, just as the camera sans over the audience, he can win “over” his clients.
The tobacco industry seems like a beneficial addition to our economy. It has basically been a socially acceptable business in the past because it brings jobs to our people and tax money to the government to redistribute; but consider the cost of tobacco related treatment, mortality and disability- it exceeds the benefit to the producer by two hundred billion dollars US. (4) Tobacco is a very profitable industry determined to grow despite government loss or public health. Its history has demonstrated how money can blind morals like an addiction that is never satisfied. Past lawsuits were mostly unsuccessful because the juries blamed the smoker even though the definition of criminal negligence fits the industry’s acts perfectly. Some may argue for the industry in the name of free enterprise but since they have had such a clear understanding of the dangers of their product it changes the understanding of their business tactics and motives. The success of the industry has merely been a reflection of its immoral practices. These practices have been observed through its use of the media in regards to children, the tests that used underage smokers, the use of revenue to avoid the law, the use of nicotine manipulation and the suppression of research.
The cigarrette companies are not acting with social responsibility. Why or how could this be any bit of an ethical decision by the executives of the tobacco companies? These companies should believe and follow it’s moral set in the country it belongs and carry them into every business transaction that they make, whether it be in New York City or Mongolia. It is too bad that as a capitalistic society we lower ourselves below ethical lines just to earn a buck or two!
After reading the article "Whose lungs are they, anyway?" by Janet Singleton, I was able to determine the proposal at issue. The issue in this article is about why people decide to smoke and who s responsible for making hat decision. Should we put the blame one the tobacco industry or is it just people's own decision to smoke? The position I stand in is I feel that the tobacco industry should not be held responsible for smokers' decision to smoke. I feel this way because the tobacco industry doesn't force anyone to start smoking, that the smokers are made choice by themselves.
There are many explicit premises in this article that I will examine. The first premise is that, Tobacco companies have been and continue to be involved in undermining scientific evidence that documents the health hazards of secondhand smoke. This is more than an hidden assumption, reference from the Los Angles Times reported in November 1999 that the major cigarette companies "are engaged in a far-reaching campaign to discredit evidence that secondhand smoke is harmful to human health." This is my second premise. Here, there is an implied notion that the Los Angels Times conducted a study to find these findings true. The third premise states, Tobacco industry allies recycle old myths and propaganda - and continue to plant the seeds of confusion and doubt as to the economic effects of smoke free air policies - before legislatures and city councils. Here we see the strong initiative that the tobacco companies especially Philips and Morris take to attack policies that go against their business. The next premise is the fourth premise, As in the past, tobacco companies have continued to create and hide behind front groups to lobby against tobacco control and public health policies. This is another implied notion, which we can say that tobacco companies are trying to control the regulations on tobacco.
Peter Brimelow’s “Thank You for Smoking…?” had me interested from the title alone. This essay lists a few of the benefits that can occur from smoking. Bimelow is aware of the many dangers of smoking as he acknowledges “the Environmental Protection Agency has claimed that ‘second hand smoke’ is a significant risk for nonsmokers and the Food & Drug Administration is making noises about regulating nicotine as a drug” (The Genre of Argument 141). Brimelow’s essay gives some reasons why and how smoking can be beneficial in some small ways. The message Brimelow is trying to get out is that, “smoking might be, in some small ways, good for you” (141). Brimelow uses words and phrases such as “might be” and “some” to narrow down his major claim. Brimelow’s major claim that smoking can be healthy in some ways. In some studies, certain cancers have been shown to appear less in smokers than nonsmokers. This leads us to believe that smoking may be beneficial in some ways. I think this essay is successful because of the evidence presented along with the narrow major claim.
Thank You for Smoking Rhetorical Analysis: Thank you for not smoking. The film Thank You for Smoking is an obscure jesting that follows a petitioner, Nick Naylor, for the tobacco industry. Murky comedies take a grave topic, and light the topic through mockery. A worthy example of rhetoric can be found in Thank You for Smoking, during a scene where Nick Naylor delivers an argument against putting a skull and crossbones label on every pack of cigarettes. Senator Finistirre does this during a hearing in front of a congressional committee lead by Vermont.
“Cigarette is one of the leading cause of death in the World!” “Cigarette can cause lungs cancer!” “Cigarette is harmful and is bad for society!” These are the things that the society taught us ever since we are young. Everyone knows that cigarette is harmful for the human body, but why does the percentage of people smoking is still high and is increasing every year. Why does it is so hard for people to quit or not try cigarette in the first place, despite knowing the consequences of this small, innocent looking-yet-deadly roll of paper. Clearly, the effort of our society to prevent people from smoking is not effective. Recently, more and more anti-smoking campaigns were produced by different corporations, in order to join the race in tobacco
In the film Thank you for smoking, Nick Naylor- the main character of the film employs rhetorical devices such as re-framing, hyperbole and numerous logical fallacies to win his argument
Experiencing the death of a loved one is never easy, especially when the cause is something self-inflicted, such as cigarettes. Imagine if that loved one was your parent or even worse, your own child. Now, imagine watching the demise and physical incapacities that transpire while you see them deteriorate right in front of you. Feel the anger that would coarse through your veins if you were to see an add that glamorized such deadly instruments, particularly once you realize that the areas being marketed are lower class. Cigarettes are legal killers that cripple many individuals and families alike. They are a highly addictive substance that benefit no one. I am against cigarettes in every capacity as I have dealt with the effects of it on a personal level. Cigarettes leave a distaste in the mouth literally and figuratively. I am also a firm believer that
...ave been successful. This same person would and has vehemently denied that there is anything remotely fascist in the anti-smoking movement or the manner in which it has been conducted. This is archetype behavior of individuals not wishing to confront or be confronted with the possibility that they’ve not understood how the cultural mass of which we are all a part, has been led down a path and sold a bill of goods that are not necessarily good. The inherent insidiousness of this is found in the blindness that is a byproduct of the zealous actions of the would be altruistic who lacks a basic understanding of the domino effect that once set into motion will ultimately turn back and demand the sacrifice of rights that these same zealots assume to be unquestionably theirs. In the final analysis one has to ask if perhaps we’ve just had smoke blown in our collective faces.
The tobacco industry is a very unethical industry, due to the long term effects of tobacco on humans. The industry also does not assess the ethical and social responsibility the best way that it should. There are many factors that make the industry unethical; some of the reasons are the way the cigarette companies around the world Advertise, the way governments and cigarette companies make a huge profit from the sales of cigarettes, and the labeling health risks. I do believe however that there is something that the tobacco companies can do to better their strategy as far as their ethics go. I think that they should, always be looking for the best interest on their consumers, as well as advertise strictly on the effects that the cigarettes and what the people are getting for their money.
But unfortunately I have no choice in most public patios. One says passive smoking but I want rather call it involuntary smoking .
Smoking is one of the dangerous habits that people perform in their lives. This habit affects the health and causes several diseases, such as lung cancer, cardiovascular disease, and pulmonary disease (Institute of Medicine, 2012). In the family I visited, the father is a smoker. He strongly approves with the idea of smoking while the mother strongly disapproves the idea of smoking. Both of them know that smoking is harmful to the smoker, but the father does not know that smoking is harmful for other people who are called: second hand smokers. In addition, the father was at the age of 15 when he started smoking cigarettes. There is more than one reason that pushed the father to start smoking when he was a teenager. One of these reasons is copying the behavior of his father. He believes it would be difficult for him to give up smoking. I agree that quit of smoking is difficult since cigarettes contain nicotine, which is more addictive than heroin and also smoking becomes part of his daily routine (Giovanni, 2012).