What can cigarettes, Diet Coke and major motion pictures tell us about ethics in modern society? In the past, the unwritten ethical model that regulated society was founded on the famous proverb, "Everything in moderation." You can drink, but not too much; have sex, but not too much; eat whatever you want, but not too much. Today, this traditional paradigm has inverted and the new socio-ethical injunction is "Enjoy!" Today, more than ever, we are solicited to do whatever gives us pleasure to the point where not doing so implies some sort of depravity. This new mantra marks the coordinates of our liberal, patronizing attitudes toward strict sexual abstinence, conservative religious fundamentalism and, in some cases, the choice not to drink alcohol.
However, beyond the notion that we live in a world of unrestrained hedonism, the rule to enjoy contains another crucial element that can tell us a lot about modern mores. I sympathize with philosopher and sociologist Slavoj Zizek when he said, in effect, that most negative behavior is accepted or even applauded when it is supplemented with its own counter-agent. In other words, today we are encouraged to enjoy ourselves but in order to enjoy properly, one must counteract the enjoyment with its opposite.
Zizek points out several popular items on today's market that are deprived of their malignant properties: decaffeinated coffee, artificial sweetener, fat-free ice cream and Diet Coke. The widespread use of these products can be attributed to their capacity to deliver pleasure without the normal, negative consequences. I cannot resist adding chocolate-flavored laxative to this list of encapsulated, pseudo-ethical victories (the logic here is that chocolate is what causes constipation and the laxative is what relieves it).
This phenomenon may seem a little foreign but consider this: Have you ever spent extra time at the gym to justify a bout of excessive eating? Have you ever ordered a Diet Coke at McDonalds to complement your fat-infused meal? Have you ever committed to hours of Adderall-fueled studying to make up for all the wasted time that you spent partying? If so, you are employing the logic of the chocolate laxative; the deleterious effects of enjoyment are remedied by an opposite (but not always equal) countermeasure.
Could this be why many people have a spontaneous aversion to the idea of smoking? Of course, there are many reasons to hate the idea of smoking: the countless health risks, the repugnant practices of the tobacco industry and second-hand smoke. But when we see someone enjoying a cigarette, are we disgusted by its vile associations or is there something else at work here? What if our impulsive disgust of smokers is due to the fact that a burning cigarette represents enjoyment without a built-in counter-agent? If you don't believe me, consider the way smokers are portrayed in modern movies. Isn't it interesting that characters portrayed as morally questionable or downright evil are almost always smoking throughout the film? Gordon Gecko, Tyler Durden and Tony Montana share two things in common: 1) A monstrous unconscious motive and 2) an affinity for cigarettes. In fact, in May 2007 the Motion Picture Association of America announced that tobacco use will affect content ratings in all future films. There is clearly something sinister and immoral about the act of smoking itself (remember the Fox News pundits who questioned Obama's character during the election because he is a smoker?).
I am not trying to defend smoking, but the resentful attitudes toward tobacco are symptomatic of a larger ethical disaster in modern society. Why is it that smokers have become the villains of society and companies like Starbucks represent the quintessential model of corporate responsibility? Now, I love Starbucks coffee, but I would love it a lot more if I weren't bombarded with transparent promises of environmental conservation and farmers' rights in exchange for my purchase. At Starbucks, consumption and political action have effectively merged and customers can enjoy a guilt-free cup of coffee believing that they have contributed to global harmony. This feeling is, ultimately, false. Next time you go to Starbucks, read the cup: "Buy our coffee and good things happen." I think a more honest message would be, "Don't think about the actual causes of ecological destruction and poverty; don't think about the harmful effects of global capitalism and our participation in it; just buy our coffee and we will give a little money back!" The marketing genius of Starbucks allows it to continue its profitable empire (chocolate) and simultaneously avoid criticism by donating to popular causes (laxative).
If you think my message is a little farfetched, you may be right. However, in order to avoid an ethical pitfall, we should question anything that appears absolutely and unconditionally good. If not, we may find ourselves in a world where Bill Gates is the greatest humanitarian, Rupert Murdoch is the leading environmentalist and George Soros is the most effective political activist.
