Abstract
Scientific disputes about public health issues can become emotional battlefields marked by strong emotions like anger, contempt, and disgust. Contemporary work in moral psychology demonstrates that each of these emotions is a reaction to a specific type of moral violation. Applying this work to harm reduction debates, specifically the use of smokeless tobacco to reduce harm from tobacco use, we attempt to explain why some public health disputes have been so heated. Public health ethics tend to emphasize social justice concerns to the exclusion of other moral perspectives that value scientific authority, professional loyalty, and bodily purity. An awareness of their different emotional reactions and underlying moral motivations might help public health professionals better understand each others’ viewpoints, ultimately leading to more productive dialogue.
References
Shweder, R.A., Much, N.C., Mahapatra, M. and Park, L. (1997) The ‘big three’ of morality (autonomy, community, divinity) and the ‘big three’ explanation of suffering. In: A. Brandt and P. Rozin (eds.) Morality and Health. New York: Rutledge, pp. 119–169.
Rozin, P., Lowery, L., Imada, S. and Haidt, J. (1999) The CAD triad hypothesis: A mapping between three moral emotions (contempt, anger, disgust) and three moral codes (community, autonomy, divinity). Journal of Personal and Social Psychology 76 (4): 574–586.
Tobacco Advisory Group of the Royal College of Physicians. (2007) Harm Reduction in Nicotine Addiction: Helping People Who Can’t Quit. London, UK: Royal College of Physicians, pp. 222–223, http://www.rcplondon.ac.uk/pubs/contents/bbc2aedc-87f7-4117-9ada-d7cdb21d9291.pdf, accessed 23 November 2009.
Bernstein, E. (2006) Sex-ed class becomes latest school battleground. Wall Street Journal 30 March, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB114368617670711926.html, accessed 23 November 2009.
Santelli, J.S. (2008) Medical accuracy in sexuality education: Ideology and the scientific process. American Journal of Public Health 98 (10): 1786–1792.
Conason, J. (1998) Clinton misses point in debate over needles. New York Observer 3 May, http://www.observer.com/node/40492, accessed 23 November 2009.
Washington Post. (2005) Deadly ignorance. 27 February, http://www.ungassondrugs.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=72&Itemid=10, accessed 23 November 2009.
Coutinho, R.A. (2000) Needle exchange, pragmatism, and moralism. American Journal of Public Health 90 (9): 1387–1388.
Moss, A.R. (2000) Epidemiology and the politics of needle exchange. American Journal of Public Health 90 (9): 1385–1387.
Kozlowski, L.T. (1984) Less-hazardous tobacco use as treatment for the ‘smoking and health’ problem. In: R.G. Smart, H.D. Cappell, F.B. Glaser, Y. Israel, H. Kalant, R.E. Popham, W. Schmidt and E.M. Sellers (eds.) Research Advances in Drug and Alcohol Problems, Vol. 8, New York and London: Plenum Press, pp. 309–328.
Newsome, B. (2008) Some experts say snuff is a safer alternative to cigarettes. Gazette 8 July, http://www.redorbit.com/news/health/1465838/some_experts_say_snuff_is_a_safer_alternative_to_cigarettes/index.html, accessed 23 November 2009.
Kozlowski, L.T. (2008) The proposed tobacco regulation: The triumph of hope over experience? Tobacco Control 17 (2): 74–75.
Kozlowski, L.T. and Edwards, B.Q. (2005) ‘Not safe’ is not enough: Smokers have a right to know more than there is no safe tobacco product. Tobacco Control 14 (2): ii3–ii7.
Kozlowski, L.T. (2002) Harm reduction, public health, and human rights: Smokers have a right to be informed of significant harm reduction options. Nicotine and Tobacco Research 4 (2): 55–60.
Piaget, J. (1932) The Moral Judgment of the Child. New York: Free Press.
Kohlberg, L. (1969) Stage and sequence: The cognitive-developmental approach to socialization. In: D.A. Golsin (ed.) Handbook of Socialization Theory and Research. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally, pp. 347–480.
Haidt, J. and Joseph, C. (2004) Intuitive ethics: How innately prepared intuitions generate culturally variable virtues. Daedalus 133 (4): 55–66.
Haidt, J. and Graham, J. (2007) When morality opposes justice: Conservatives have moral intuitions that liberals may not recognize. Social Justice Research 20 (1): 98–116.
Haidt, J. (2007) The new synthesis in moral psychology. Science 316 (5827): 998–1002.
Public Health Leadership Society. (2002) Principles of the ethical practice of public health. Version 2.2, http://www.apha.org/NR/rdonlyres/1CED3CEA-287E-4185-9CBD-BD405FC60856/0/ethicsbrochure.pdf, accessed 23 November 2009.
Levy, D.T. et al (2004) The relative risks of a low-nitrosamine smokeless tobacco product compared with smoking cigarettes: Estimates of a panel of experts. Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers and Prevention 13 (12): 2035–2042.
Zeller, M. et al (2009) The strategic dialogue on tobacco harm reduction: A vision and blueprint for action in the united states. Tobacco Control Online 24 February, http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/cgi/rapidpdf/tc.2008.027318v1?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=strategic+dialogue+on+tobacco+harm+reduction&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&resourcetype=HWCIT, accessed 23 November 2009.
Institute of Medicine. (2001) Clearing the Smoke: Assessing the Science Base for Tobacco Harm Reduction. Washington: National Academy Press, p. 167.
Rozin, P. and Singh, L. (1999) The moralization of cigarette smoking in the United States. Journal of Consumer Psychology 8 (3): 321–337.
Satel, S. (2004) Commentary: A smokeless alternative to quitting. New York Times 6 April, http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9402EFD91E39F935A35757C0A9629C8B63, accessed 23 November 2009.
American Cancer Society. (2008) Smokeless tobacco: Harm reduction debatable. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians 58: 4–6, http://caonline.amcancersoc.org/cgi/content/full/58/1/4, accessed 23 November 2009.
Rodu, B. (2008) Letter to the editor. Smokeless tobacco: Society response debatable. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, 22 February, http://caonline.amcancersoc.org/cgi/eletters/58/1/4, accessed 23 November 2009.
Thun, M.J. and DeLancey, J.O. (2008) Letter to the editor. Response from MJ Thun and JO DeLancey. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, 22 February, http://caonline.amcancersoc.org/cgi/eletters/58/1/4, accessed 23 November 2009.
Phillips, C.V. and Bergen, P. (2008) Letter to the editor. Re: Response from MJ Thun and JO DeLancey. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, 29 April, http://caonline.amcancersoc.org/cgi/eletters/58/1/4, accessed 23 November 2009.
Byers, T. and Huerta, E. (2008) Letter to the editor. Response from Byers and Huerta. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, 29 April, http://caonline.amcancersoc.org/cgi/eletters/58/1/4, accessed 23 November 2009.
New York Times. (2007) Smokeless tobacco aims at U.S. market. Comments 4, 10, 20, 24–25, 36, 38–39, 40, 52–53, 62, 71, 108, 131–132, 135, 137, and 142. 3 October, http://news.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/03/smokeless-tobacco-aims-at-us-market/#comment, accessed 23 November 2009.
Rozin, P., Haidt, J. and McCauley, C.R. (2000) Disgust. In: M. Lewis and J.M. Haviland-Jones (eds.) Handbook of Emotions, 2nd edn. New York: Guilford Press, pp. 637–653.
Kozlowski, LT. (2003) First, tell the truth: A dialogue on human rights, deception, and the use of smokeless tobacco as a substitute for cigarettes. Tobacco Control 12: 34–36.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
The authors explore why scientific debates about public health often become emotionally charged. They suggest that using the lens of contemporary moral psychology could help participants achieve more understanding and more productive debate.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Alderman, J., Dollar, K. & Kozlowski, L. Commentary: Understanding the origins of anger, contempt, and disgust in public health policy disputes: Applying moral psychology to harm reduction debates. J Public Health Pol 31, 1–16 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1057/jphp.2009.52
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/jphp.2009.52