Limited Aggregation and E-Cigarettes

Introduction Nonconsequentialist ethicists have noted that small harms, goods, or claims should not count against large claims. For example, given a choice between saving one life and a large group of people with minor headaches, we ought to save the one life, no matter how large the group is. This principle has been called limited aggregation. The principle of limited aggregation might have implications on public health policy, given that public health policy involves weighing the claims of individuals against one another. Aims and Methods I aim to show that limited aggregation has implications for policies on e-cigarettes and alternative nicotine delivery systems. The methodology used in this study involves critical analysis of existing literature and pre-theoretical moral views. Results This study does not use empirical research. Conclusions In deciding to allow or encourage the use of e-cigarettes or alternative nicotine delivery systems, we sometimes must weigh benefits to each existing smoker affected by the policy against risks to each nonsmoker affected. I argue in this paper that when these risks, to each individual nonsmoker, are sufficiently small, we ought not to count them against more significant benefits to smokers. This applies even when the number of nonsmokers affected by a policy exceeds the number of smokers. Implications This paper implies that policymakers ought to be sensitive to the scale of benefits or risks introduced by a policy on individuals. If the negative side effects, on each affected individual, of a proposed policy are sufficiently small, they do not count against the beneficial goals of that policy. Depending on the expected effects of each given e-cigarette policy, this may give policymakers defeasible reasons to prioritize the needs of current smokers, who may each gain a lot from various means of smoking cessation, over nonsmokers, who each may only have a small chance of picking up smoking.