Industries reframe disputes to keep harm out of personal responsibility

Evidence

Evidence that exposure to secondhand smoke is injurious to the health of nonsmokers was especially troublesome. Smoking was no longer a private matter that could be justified by freedom of choice. It became a public health problem affecting nonsmokers whose rights were being violated. Tobacco smoke, the industry contended, was erroneously blamed for respiratory problems because it is so visible. Industry officials attempted to rebut arguments about its adverse effects: “Conduct research to anticipate and refute claims about the health effects of passive smoking” (Irwin, 1983). In addition, industry officials challenged the reliability of the research findings: “The alleged harm done by smoking to innocent bystanders by ‘environmental tobacco smoke’ (ETS) … has been used with great success by the anti-tobacco activists to bolster the arguments for government intervention… . However, the data continue to be inconclusive” (Bennett & Di Lorenzo, 1997). — Albert Bandura, Moral Disengagement, 1669

Categorization

• ADDENDUM: Direct parallel to how authorities rationalize harm to out-groups — relevant to the cooperation/authoritarianism vault claims.
• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Albert Bandura, Moral Disengagement: How People Do Harm…, 1669