The evidence is clear that smoking is harmful to the smoker, and also to the person who inhales second-hand smoke. Additionally, we were in my parents' home. I know that they have hard and fast rules about smoking on their property. My friend took a different point-of-view: he acquiesced to my request, but said that he thought his country had a more reasonable attitude towards smoking: a utilitarian approach. "If everyone is smoking," he said, "why not permit it -- simply banning it will not force people to quit. That is a personal decision, and more pleasure is given by allowing people the option, particularly if everyone or almost everyone in the party is a smoker."

My friend is a good man, but good people can still manifest addictive, 'bad' habits (one reason that the idea of virtue ethics falls flat in relation to health issues). Even allowing individuals to smoke socially, even if it is part of their culture, creates the impression that the behavior is acceptable and causes harm to society: thus, I believe that my anti-smoking stance is not merely, in Kohlberg's terms, a kind of rule-related exercise (although I was enforcing parental rules) but one based upon my belief in a universal principle of upholding the integrity of the body and the right for individuals to protect their health. The right of a person to be free of carcinogenic substances always, trans-culturally, trumps that of someone's freedom to choose to pollute his body.

DQ3: Nuclear shelter

The construct of this exercise -- deciding who...

However, perhaps the best way to approach the exercise is through the process of elimination. The first person I would eliminate is the male mental patient, for fear that he would lack the mental stability necessary to survive for an extended period of time in a shelter. I would also eliminate the six-year-old female child, as horrible as this would be, because a small child would likely be too fragile to survive in a post-apocalyptic scenario, and would need more care than be able to give care to others.
I would definitely preserve the life of the male carpenter and male biologist, simply because they could provide highly useful, practical skills that would enable others to survive, after emerging from the shelter. Building homes and understanding the biological damage of nuclear war is essential for the future survival of the human race. To repopulate the world and also to create a new framework of laws, I would select the female attorney, even though she might be too old to reproduce. (But at age forty, there is still the chance). Finally, I would select the pregnant college student -- she would have enough knowledge to make a contribution to the world, could clearly make a contribution to repopulating the world, and this would also save one additional life. The male physician is too old, although his skills are useful, and the minister provides spiritual rather than vital practical skills. Although spirituality is of great value during trying times, practical needs must come first.