麻豆传媒在线

Suppose there was a restaurant with a rule that customers must be completely naked inside. Would that be an obstacle to me deciding my own way of life? What about a coffee shop where smoking is mandatory? Personally, I find no appeal in either, but as long as those rules are announced in advance and the practical possibility of "not using" the establishment is guaranteed, the existence of such a shop somewhere in the world would make no difference to my life (or the lives of all those who, like me, wish to live unrelated to such acts). Nevertheless, can the use of public power to prohibit the existence of such shops be justified?

The conclusion from J.S. Mill's "harm principle," for example, would be that it cannot. This idea—that the state is only permitted to prohibit an act if it causes harm to others—is based on the principle that every individual is equally guaranteed the capacity and qualification to judge what is necessary for their own life and what brings them happiness. In other words, this is (one of) the cornerstones of modern society and democracy as a system in which everyone participates equally.

Of course, while it is fine that murder and injury can be prohibited based on the harm principle, it goes without saying that things like noise and vibration—which are hard to call "harm" but may hinder my enjoyment of my life (nuisances)—become an issue. However, even so, one cannot deny that there are people who enjoy such things, as seen in the occasional hits of "explosive sound screenings" of movies or immersive screenings that include movement and wind. Where is the way for such people and those who are not (including myself) to coexist? The answer likely lies in the physical existence of space.

If the substance of smoke obstructs my self-determination regarding health, what is necessary to prevent that is for smoke not to enter my surroundings and for the practical possibility of me not entering a space where smoke exists to be guaranteed—nothing more and nothing less. And if what is needed to ensure this is the separation of space according to the presence or absence of smoke, then a "total smoking ban" and "total smoking permission" are equivalent. If we can allow those who like the presence of smoke and those who do not to breathe different air in completely different spaces, we can maximize the possibility of happiness as envisioned by each individual.

Of course, the next problem lies in how to handle spaces that cannot be separated in such a way—typically public spaces where all kinds of people come and go, such as roads and public transportation. If a safe option or a standard that interferes with others as little as possible must be adopted among multiple choices here, then a smoking ban will likely be chosen. If, apart to public spaces, spaces where one can enjoy tobacco smoke to one's heart's content are practically guaranteed, such regulations should not become an excessive restriction on each person's life. In this case, the regulation of public space is ethically justified by the lack of regulation in private space.

Regulations in European countries that ban smoking indoors to avoid trapping secondhand smoke (the primary issue) have often been contrasted with the Japanese approach of banning smoking on the streets for aesthetic reasons. However, the former also permits bringing smoking into public spaces where people with unknown views or circumstances regarding tobacco exist. And while smoke may indeed be carried away by the wind outdoors, it does not immediately cease to exist, nor does the danger of a lit cigarette while smoking disappear. European-style regulations create something that is rather the opposite of a society that enables the coexistence of people with different life plans, and the cause can be seen in the fact that they attempted to regulate private spaces before public spaces.

Partitioning a specific, limited space for people with certain orientations, intentions, or tastes does not contradict the existence of a public space where diverse people coexist, provided that its nature is clearly stated and freedom of entry and exit is allowed. Nevertheless, measures against secondhand smoke for the Tokyo Olympics propose a style of regulation that forces one side as a general principle even for partitioned spaces like restaurants. This is difficult to justify, at least as long as it is based on the principle of self-determination, and might result in creating something different from the modernity upon which we stand.

When we eliminate the possibility of spatial partitioning—the foundation of a free society that trusts the autonomy of each individual—and try to paint over every space with the standards of a publicly open field, the tyranny of an unreliable entity called "the common sense of the majority" reveals itself. We should recall that this was exactly what Mill was most wary of.