Ethical Questions: The theme of Quitters inc.

The ultimate theme to Quitters Inc. by Stephen King, is pragmatism derived from a branch of ethics called pragmatics.  What is pragmatics exactly? Pragmatics is a philosophical view in which ethics is approached practically. Some of the main points to pragmatics include Employing criteria but not having it be critical, not basing their practices or rituals on certain principals but not being entirely unprincipled, being tolerant without being irresolute, and having theory and practice.

This is shown in the story as what the quitters inc. practices. Examples were setting the contract with Morrison. They set no obvious rules on how Morrison could quit the smoking or how he should stop or even if there was any option to whether he should or not but they set the idea that if he did smoke a cigarette then someone close to him would get hurt.  They showed all of the pragmatic qualities. They weren’t totalitarian with the beliefs that they carried and they didn’t impose them onto the main character but they didn’t really give him an option of quitting  the rehabilitation itself.

So was their point of view ethical? one can say that it wasn’t because they imposed quitting cigarettes or having the consequence of losing something important of he didn’t. But they did it for something good. Smoking cigarettes was something reasonable to them and they felt that it would help Morrison in the long run since he couldn’t help himself with quitting.

Source:

Sullivan, Stephen O., and Philip A. Pecorino. “Pragmatist Ethic.” Ethics: An Online Textbook. N.p.: n.p., n.d. N. pag. Pragmatist Ethic. 2002. Web. 23 Oct. 2013. <http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences/ppecorino/ethics_text/Chapter_10_Postmodernism_Pragmatism/Pragmatist_Ethic.htm&gt;.

 

Pragmatism inflection: Quitters Inc.

In the short story Quitters Inc., by Stephen King, the main character is has two options, Quit smoking, or suffer and possibly be killed. The idea of pragmatism resonates with me because essentially its the most idealistic view to have on things, but it goes against the main stream society view of “normal”. Pragmatism is defined in philosophical terms as “an approach that assesses the truth of meaning of theories or beliefs in terms of the success of their practical application.”(Merriam-Webster) In this definition it the approach sounds reasonable. In the definition the end justifies the means in any application. Stephen king has a problem with this definition in practicality and he shows this opinion in this short story. He shows the horrors of a pragmatic look at someone who needs to quit smoking. The rule is if he smokes even though he said he will quit smoking, his wife and son will be beaten. Yes this is the motivation he needs to stop smoking and never smoke again, but is this necessary. The pragmatic view of this is that he will never smoke again which is good for his health. A realistic viewpoint of someone with morals of the normal human being will consider this cruel and unusual. The question i asked myself, is if this whole pragmatism approach make sense. Yes things we be accomplished in the most efficient matter possible, but is it realistic. Would emotions be lost and sorrows be forgotten? In theory if the world practiced pragmatism that would be the norm. If pragmatism was practiced it would border on utopia, the ends would always have a positive effect and nobody would do things that had no value or purpose, such as smoking. One question that should be asked is: why isn’t pragmatism the normality in todays society?

Moral Concepts Within the Short Story “Quitters Inc.”

The Literature piece “Quitters Inc” written by Stephen King focuses on the concept of “pragmatism” and deconstructs the idea that if something is successful but morally wrong, should it be done? Smoking has been a habit that for centuries people have tried to quit. It becomes a lifestyle that consumes an individual until that individual can barely think  without a cigarette near by. So when this non-profit mysterious organization comes along and claims that they can guarantee that a person will stop smoking within months, how can one deny the opportunity? Donatti states multiple times within the text that he and his fellow colleagues are all “pragmatists”. Donatti states “Love is most pernicious drug of all. Let the romantics debate its existence. Pragmatists accept it and use it”. Although this is a very “matter-of-fact” way at viewing a situation, people typically don’t view love from such a cold viewpoint. The organization “Quitters” uses the clients loved ones to force them to stop quitting. In an ad for Child Health Foundation, a similar tactic is demonstrated below.

or this advertisement by Children Corporation Against Cancer,

Although these are both visual and verbal statements, rather than a physical attack, it is somewhat similar to the Donatti’s organization within the short story. There have been a lot more ads that instead of displaying the horrible effects smoking can have on the actual smoker’s body, the advertisement companies are depicting an image that affects them even more, the horrid effect that their habit can have on their innocent loved ones. However the ad above  only gets the smoking community to think about their actions but doesn’t physically force them to stop.   Which organization do you think, “Quitters Inc” or “The Child Health Organization” would have the higher success rate? The reason why most people would view the organization “Quitter’s Inc” as  morally wrong is because it goes against emotions, a person’s feelings is completely exempt from this treatment and is no longer taken under consideration. In a society where individuals are constantly speaking of their emotions and how they feel day-to-day, this treatment usually wouldn’t be accepted by the vast majority. Could this be the reason why the treatment is so effective? Do you believe that if more treatment facilities took part in pragmatism, there would be a higher success rate? What change may that belief system bring if it were more common amongst the community?

10 Powerfully Creative Anti-Smoking Ads

http://trendland.com/best-anti-smocking-ad-campaign/

Close Reading: “Naked”

“My other regret, the last thing I thought as the river pummeled and tossed me, was how sorry I felt that I had not kissed the baby Ebba on her forehead, had not set a tiny seal of forgiveness there – a damp print of love” (Hawes 202).

One famous quote by an anonymous author states, “When you die and your life flashes before your eyes, it should be worth watching.” At this moment, Lady Godiva is having a near-death experience and she begins to reflect on her life. Prior to reaching the river, she angrily left the household of her husband’s mistress as the woman gave birth to her husband’s daughter. She felt a sense of jealousy and rage, as any wife would, towards her husband for even having a mistress. However, she did not acknowledge the child’s existence as she took her anger out on the child. Lady Godiva, also, gave the grandmother the jewels as if to pretend the child was not there.

When she got to the river, she found herself almost drowning in the stream and reflecting on the past. She realized her mistakes alongside her husband’s. In order for her and her husband to rekindle their relationships, she needed to forgive. By her not kissing the child’s forehead, she was not accepting what happened and using it to move forward with her life. Rather she was acknowledging the hatred she felt. The river allowed her to look back and think that this hatred was ruining her life. In order for her life to get back to what it was, she needed to accept the wrongdoings of her husband and use this struggle to build an even stronger relationship. Lady Godiva needed forgiveness. In the biblical sense, water symbolized baptism. Baptism is a sense of rebirth; the water gave Godiva a sense of a new life in which her and her husband would love each other as they once did.

Ethical Questions for “Quitters”

Quitters is a company that helps people quit smoking, and ultimately change their lives. Morrison, a man who is an avid smoker, and someone who isn’t exactly happy with his life runs into his old friend Jimmy McCann. McCann has quit smoking, and was extremely fit at the time he sees Morrison. McCann tells Morrison that he should go to Quitters, because it will change his whole life. Morrison decides to give the treatment a try, and ends up finding out that the process to quit smoking is painful, not just for him but for his entire family. If he is caught smoking once, his wife gets an electric shock, a second time, he would get, and the third both of them. The consequences only get worse, as the amount of times he gets caught smoking increases. Morrison quickly changes his mind and doesn’t want to continue the program, but is forced to. At the end of his treatment, Morrison has successfully stopped smoking, and lost weight with the price of his wife being shocked one time.

Although the treatment worked for Morrison, and the intended result was achieved, the process was extremely inhumane. Is it ethical to punish someone for doing something that they have no relation to? Is it ethical to electrically shock someone as a punishment for something that is only hurting them? I do not think it was right that Cindy was punished for her husband’s mistakes, and I also don’t think that electric shock is an ethical punishment. Yes Morrison was hurting himself, but he was only hurting himself, no one else. I think electric shock is something that should only be used as a punishment for actual criminals.

About the Author: Kings’ inspiration for “Quitters, Inc.”

After reading the short story, “Quitters, Inc.” I looked at all of the pages for an author but couldn’t find one.  Out of curiosity, I looked up the author online to find that it was surprisingly the one and only Stephen King.  King was born in September of 1947 in Maine.  King attended the University of Maine later on in life. After receiving a certificate to teach, he couldn’t find a job so resorted to writing short stories for men’s magazines.  Later on he found a teaching job, but still continued to write.  Present day, King has many occupations that include writing and producing.

The first thing I read about King that really struck me was that when he was only 2 years old his father left him and his brothers because he was  “going to buy a pack of cigarettes.”  As soon as I read this, his short story “Quitters, Inc.” had more meaning to it.  It helped me understand why he would write about a man who wants to quite smoking.  When I read the story, I thought the way Donatti made Morrison quite smoking was horrible (by torturing him, his wife, and mental son).  Now knowing that the authors dad left for a pack of cigarettes and never returned to his family, I understand why he made Morrison’s family pay for his smoking addiction.  It seems as though he is comparing the pain Morrison’s family receives if he smokes, to the pain Kings’ own family received when his father left (which is symbolized by smoking).  I also learned that his inspiration may have come when he saw one of his friends get killed by a train.  The psychological effects of this could have easily contributed to the type of dark writing he has.

One question I would have for King would have to do with the son in his short story, “Quitters, Inc.”  I wonder if there was any meaning behind the son having mental problems.  Maybe this represented something from his own life.  I also would like to know if any of King’s work isn’t as dark.  There must have been some happy moments in his life that he would inspire him. In the attached interview with Stephen King, he discusses his short story writings and how he thinks that writing short stories may be a “difficult craft” for writers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1qItKJ8RiQ

Personal Reflection: The Truman Show

“The Truman Show” is a movie about a show, The Truman show, that is produced, focusing on the life of a man, Truman. His whole life is basically a setup, where everything is already planned for him, but he doesn’t know that, until the end of the movie. He does not grow up with his real parents and he ends up marrying someone who does not really love him. His only friend is not a real friend because they all are getting paid to act.

When I watched the movie, I was really shocked to see how the director uses one person’s life, and uses him to make a reality television show, from the day Truman was born. Many people tried to let Truman know that he is living a lie, but never worked. I really felt bad for Truman, because it is crazy when a person finds out that they have been living a lie their whole life. I personally cant think on how i would have reacted if this happened to me. This show does describe a way of voyeurism, as everybody knows what Truman does and what he likes to eat and drink and there is no escape for Truman till the end of the movie.

Ethical Question: What is Reality, Truman Show

So, the Truman Show about is about a man named Truman who is a star of a reality TV show, although he has no idea that he’s even in a show at all. His whole life is preprogrammed and predestined without his knowledge where everyone he knows is an actor including his family and friends. Now, of course, this raises the question of whether this kind of thing is right and ethical, and if such a thing would ever be allowed, but an even bigger question may be: what is reality?

Truman sure wasn’t living in what most people would consider a real reality, but as far as he knew, everything was real. Therefore, does that mean, that even the world we live in could simply be an illusion, just like Truman’s was? Can people trust what they see at all? Or, should people just trust the reality they create for themselves, like Truman was able to when he finally figured out that he was being watched and left to experience the real world. It may have taken a while, but in the end, Truman was able to choose his won fate. He was then in charge of making and finding out his own destiny. Truman discovered a new reality, but did that mean that his old, controlled world was any less real?

I suppose that as long as one believes that what they see is real, then it is, and it is up to us to make our own reality; to shape and control our own world. The reality we choose to believe is our true reality, I feel, and every new path we take or new way we live is a new reality we face.

Personal Thoughts of “The Dead Past”

I found that the short story “The Dead Past” had a larger impact on me than the other short stories we have read because it made me think a lot more. While reading, I questioned a lot of the different point of views which were seen by the different characters in the story. When I first began reading, I strongly believed that the invention of a chronoscope was a good idea because it could be used for historians to make new discoveries of what had actually happened years ago, rather than just making a hypothesis and doing scientific research to attempt to prove that these hypothesis’ are in fact true. Because this was the reason why Arnold had wanted to produce a chronoscope, I agreed that it would be a very useful and harmless invention.

What made me think much deeper about the pros and cons of this invention was the passion that Arnold’s wife had for this invention as well. Caroline Potterley had no interest in the chronoscope being used for historical reasons. She believed that she could use it to see her deceased daughter again years before she had passed away. She states “Wouldn’t it be wonderful, to have one? People of the past could live again. Pharaohs and kings and — just people”(327). The moment that Mrs. Potterley said this I knew what her intentions of the chronoscope were actually for and it turned my whole perspective around. At one point Mrs. Potterley also yelled at her husband, “Please! Listen to me. Arnold, don’t you see that as long as we can use it for twenty years back, we can see Laurel once again? What do we care about Carthage and ancient times?”(332). This made me change my perspective because if Mrs. Potterley had hoped to use the chronoscope for this reason, many other people would also try to do the same thing. Nobody would ever be able to move forward with his or her lives after a tragedy such as losing a loved one. If everyone lived in the past, they would eventually lose their mind from reliving the same moments over and over again because they would not be able to get past them.

Ethical Question: The Truman Show

In “The Truman Show,” Truman lives in a world that was built for him. He has been the star of a reality TV show since birth, yet thinks that he is just an average guy. Everyone around him are actors, and everyone besides Truman are aware of their place on the show. Truman is owned by the corporation that runs “The Truman Show” and so he is basically a toy that they can control. A big question that is addressed in the movie, as well as in class, was whether or not this is right? Truman is given no information about his situation, and ends up figuring it out on his own. Although this is a fictional story, there are relatable situations in it. A lot of this movie has to do with the lack of privacy our world has today. Truman was unaware of how involved the rest of the world was with his life. There was absolutely no privacy. Today, just as people followed Truman’s life, one can follow your life through the Internet, and you would have no idea. It is a bit overwhelming and scary how much technology has evolved over the years, and how much power and knowledge a person can obtain through it.