# data[].attributes.body
CANCEL

upload

link

search_web

camera

more_horiz
POST

# data[].attributes.body
CANCEL

upload

link

search_web

camera

more_horiz
POST

# data[].attributes.body
MANIAGO, RICA JANELLE G.
BSN II-A

In my own opinion, I think Aristotle would respond in such debate by first looking or viewing the different perspectives of this idea on smoking bans in public areas. Observing and practicing such public safety measures are one of the prioritized prevention in maintaining the community's health. But every individual has the right or freedom to be engaged in to some acts like smoking which prevent them in experiencing stress and believes that there are still some benefits of smoking. Aristotle would consider both sides and just recommend to have just one area where you should smoke and prevent others who doesn't want to be involved into such act. You cannot just force people to do something they don't want to do especially nowadays. Respect should always be given, and by that, there is a need to have some other plans in order to give consideration on both sides without affecting each other. But into the nursing practice, as future registered nurses, we should always know what is right and prioritize the health of our patients. We need to try educating them especially when it is already unsafe and not balanced. But in the end, the patient's choice will always be followed because patients themselves are the one who is mainly responsible for their health.

# data[].attributes.body
It is not concealed in the knowledge of the majority that smoking can cause fatal diseases such as lung cancer. It will not only affect the health of the one who's smoking but also the people surround him. The public smoking ban doesn’t mean that you need to stop smoking. It just means that you need to have a designated place to smoke to avoid second-hand smoke which can lead to serious illnesses. So if Aristotle would be in a debate, I think he will support the banning of smoking for it will be simply for the betterment of the majority.  MENDOZA, Trinalynn (BSN II-A)

# data[].attributes.body
If Aristotle is still alive today and he would participate in this debate, he would definitely agree in making the public places smoke-free. Having a smoke less community would definitely benefit those who are inhaling smoke due to the smokers, but also the smokers themselves. They will all be healthier due to the elimination of smoke. There would be less chances of acquiring pulmonary illness brought about by the smoke.The inhalation of smoke in public areas alone makes people uncomfortable and we all have rights to breath in fresh and clean air. By promoting smoking ban, We can all breathe in the freshness and cleanliness we all deserve. -Muñoz, Kenneth Francis P. BSN - II B

# data[].attributes.body
I think Aristotle would agree banning smoking in public places. As we all know that smoking are one of the reasons that causes deaths but still, some people are smoking because they treat it as their coping mechanism or past time. I know it because my dad was once a smoker. And the public health focuses on maintaining/keeping the environment safe for the people and yet they didn't ban smoking in public places because they respect the people's choice and they can talk about it like assigning places where smokers can smoke away from non smokers.
--- PAULE, LEA BSNII - B

# data[].attributes.body
“Every community is an association of some kind and every community is established with a view to some good; for everyone always acts in order to obtain that which they think good. But, if all communities aim at some good, the state or political community, which is the highest of all, and which embraces all the rest, aims at good in a greater degree than any other, and at the highest good.” -- Aristotle (384-323 B.C.)
In one of his works which is entitled “Nicomachean Ethics”, Aristotle emphasized that for an individual to search for “the good”, one must inhabit by virtue, pleasure, and nature of happiness to attain “highest good”. Also, it is stated in his work that “no one tries to live well for the sake of some further goal” in which he tackled the importance of the task and function of man as a rational being.  Also, he thinks that the good of a human being must have something to do with being human and guide ourselves through reasoning.
On the other hand, in his political views written on the Politics, he defined community as the city-state in which it is composed of individual citizens. He pointed out that a community can have peace and order if the ruler as a lawgiver established the appropriate constitution for its citizens. However, he describes the constitution as not a written document, but as an existing principle similar to the soul of man, also he believes that the constitution is “the way of life” of citizens in helping the political community achieve the highest good.
Some of these texts mentioned in his works may lead to how Aristotle will respond if he encounters a debate between smoking bans in public places versus the right of an individual to exercise the usage of tobacco. In my perspective, Aristotle will surely favor the smoking ban in public places because he believes that whenever a system has a rational element, therefore, it is right to rule over the nonrational part. People do think that “it’s a free country you can do what you want” a good thing but that’s not how it works, yes each one of us has human rights but remember that everything has its boundaries. I would like to relate his two works to the passage mentioned above, I agree that every individual knows what is good for them and we always seek for power to achieve higher-good within us. However, as humans we are also a rational being that is capable of reasoning, we know what is better for us and the others, so as a citizen in the community, we should subject ourselves to the rules and regulations being brought by these authorities if these are beneficial for yourself, for the others, and the community. In conclusion, ethics and politics should be used by rulers in leading the country to achieve a virtuous life and preserve the morality of every citizen.

# data[].attributes.body
A community follows a good leader and living in a liberated country is one big challenge for a leader to lead. The society has their own liberation, to follow or not to follow a rule, except if higher profiles will give them the benefits to cooperate. Political and public health state must coordinate to one another and have the same goal in the community of which is HEALTH. Other than that, concerns about environment and surroundings that may have cause health issues of the community. Frankly, the leaders of the country [government and higher profiles] should not just focus on the economic status of the country hence, they must put health as the top priority and these may follows the well-being and civilized country. In my opinion, a health concerning issue such as smoking ban must be implemented and I would say that Aristotle would agree on this. However, every civilian have their own free will to choose what they think is good for them. Although community is liberal, the higher profiles or our leaders specifically our government and public health personnel must work as a team and act as influencers in order to aim their goal for the good of all. Higher profiles must stand on what is right and better for the community and its country for Aristotle said, "...embraces all the rest aims at good in a greater degree than any other, and the highest good."

GUTIERREZ, Louise Noreen V.
BSN II-B

# data[].attributes.body
I think Aristotle will respond to this debate by emphasizing the true essence of “freedom to choose”. Each one of us has the right to choose what we want. But, always keep in mind that our actions can affect others. Smoking is one of the things to relieve stress nowadays. If you want to smoke, then smoke. However, do not smoke in public places because it can jeopardize public health.

Reducindo, Sophia Marie

# data[].attributes.body
If Aristotle were to participate in the debate, I think he'll agree that a smoking ban should be implemented in public places because it will benefit the people and the environment but for an equal right for the people and smokers, there should be an area for them to smoke so that the second-hand smoke will be confined in a secluded area only because they also have reasons why they're smoking and it's not easy to withdraw from smoking immediately.
–Antonio, Ryla Eliane D. [BSN 2-A]

# data[].attributes.body
It is good to know that the public health and also the government is doing their best to achieve a smoke free environment through public health programs and advocacy. I'm sure Aristotle would be delighted to know that his philosophies are being put into good practice. There are already many places that practices the smoking ban policy, such as Baguio city. If they can do it, I'm sure it can also be achieved in other places, soon around the world. It is not just because it is bad for the health of the smoker but also two times more dangerous to the people around him/her. If this practice continues, then how can we achieve a safe environment for all of us? Those in authorities are already exerting effort in lessening it, may be it's time ,us, individuals should also participate as well, practice self-regulation and self-discipline. -Bautista, Aprille Ashlee G. (BSN 2-B)

# data[].attributes.body
If Aristotle were to be in this debate, I think he would be in favor of the smoking ban in public places. This concerns the community in which the person is part of because the smoke he brings could potentially harm those who inhale it. Sure they have their rights, but if it’s for the benefit of the community one must be sacrificed to achieve the greater good. -Pangilinan, Mikee (BSN II-B)

# data[].attributes.body
I think Aristotle will agree with the idea of a smoke free environment since this will not only benefit the public it will also be good for the smokers since this will be a chance for them to Stop their bad habit  or better yet have designated areas for them to smoke. An area with only few people in order to control the second hand smoking but they must have their reasons as to why they do it thus it is a must to have an open mind in listening to the opinions of the public.
-Dumapi, Ilianna (BSN2-B)

# data[].attributes.body
Based on the statement of Aristotle that “every community is established with a view to some good”, I think that Aristotle would respond to the given debate by agreeing about the smoking bans in public places. Though one of our responsibilities as a nurse is to maintain and respect our patient’s rights. But, we also need to prioritize their health by making them aware that by sacrificing of other rights and freedom of choice can achieve and improve their well - being. Through smoking bans, it can eliminate a lot of illnesses and diseases for smokers and it can also protect the health of second-hand smokers or passive smokers, which can bring positive impact for community’s health. In conclusion, I think that Aristotle will first determine which series of argument he will establish by knowing which side will be beneficial for most, that’s why I think that he would agree on the smoking bans in public places because this will be advantageous for both people and community.

Anicete, Jaquelyn Mae S.

BSN II - B

# data[].attributes.body
If we were to consider the good for everyone, I think Aristotle would agree in banning of smoking in public areas. Smoking is not only harmful to smokers but it can also be dangerous to those non-smokers who inhaled the smoke coming from a cigarette. This will ensure safety for everyone including smokers because this can be the reason for them to stop smoking since we all know that smoking can be detrimental to their health. If we ever let them or gave the smokers a place where they can smoke, then, we didn't achieve the goal of public health which is protecting and improving the health of people and their communities.

- DIZON, Lheyan Justine B. BSN II - A

# data[].attributes.body
We all know for a fact that smoking is very dangerous to our health . Aristotle’s political view is to achieve for the greater good therefore he will analyze the two opposing side and will choose the side that will be more beneficial to the community. For me, Aristotle possibly promote and advising of the smoking ban  in public places because this side is very practical to all it can help the smokers to limit themselves to the use of tobacco and to promote healthy lifestyle to all. To give respect to other people, smokers should not advise to smoke cigars in public places they should also teach ethics and manners to give value to others. It is not easy to remove what is accustomed just like smoking that is way having designated area is one thing that i can think of for the recreational smokers by limiting the places it can help smokers to avoid themselves to use cigar and eventually they can permanently remove it to their lifestyle habit. DIMAUNAHAN JOHN PAUL- BSN II - A

# data[].attributes.body
An infinite battle on individual rights and freedom. One mistake can ruin everything, it is a choice in which were we need to consider what are the responsibility we’re going to handle. As the great Aristotle said, everyone in a community has to do the said goal for us to achieve an exceptional degree. Freedom is everyone but sometimes we need to consider the people around us, example of this is smoking. Smoking in designated places is authorized, but because of seeing what it might do to others, smoker tends to stop it and achieve being a good example to others.

- Timpug, BSNII-A

# data[].attributes.body
We all know that Aristotle is a well known philosopher up till this day. If he participated in the debate he will be on the side of the community because his philosophy is what is good for the community would be in arms with people who wish to ban smoking. Knowing that there are areas for smoking it is the responsibility of an individual to smoke at the designated area.

BSN II-A
Tirona, Joshua

# data[].attributes.body
In my opinion, Aristotle would opt for some kind of “win-win” situation where everybody can do what they want. Smoking does bring upon detrimental effects to the health of an individual. But this is not enough to disregard the fact that smoking is a part of some individual’s life. Aristotle would most likely opt to do something for the sake of the greater good. That’s why I think Aristotle would be in favor of smoking bans in public. In that situation, people, more specifically non-smokers, are less exposed or at risk for second hand smoke. On the other hand, smoker, although only allowed to smoke in certain or designated areas, can still practice smoking and even develop a sense of responsibility as a user of a dangerous substance.

Dizon, Rica Mae O. (BSN2-B)

# data[].attributes.body
I think that if Aristotle will be in a debate, he will choose what will be beneficial to most of the people, which is implementing a smoking ban in all places. Public smoking bans significantly reduce the risk of heart attacks, especially among young people and non-smokers. This condition is in line with what Aristotle said, which is for the good of everyone in the community. - Santos, Mariko (BSN II-B)

# data[].attributes.body
If it's for the betterment of the community, I think, Aristotle would agree. Putting someone's health in danger because of their vices is so selfish. A healthy community starts with a healthy individual. -Mendoza,Kyle D. BSN2-B

# data[].attributes.body
Having a safe environment concerns everyone. I think Aristotle will respond to which will everyone will benefit which is advising the smoking bans in public by also having specific areas for those who smoke where they are allowed to smoke. We should not  aggravate others health because of our own actions specifically children and pregnant woman but we also not want to aggravate others who want to smoke, every person who smoke have their own reasons for doing that and we should not judge them. With that being said I think Aristotle will compromise for those people who want to ban smoking and for those people who want to smoke.

BSN2-B
Erica Ruth L. Cabrillas

# data[].attributes.body
Aristotle a great philosopher where he stated, “everyone always acts in order to obtain that which they think good”. Therefore, if Aristotle will be involved in this debate, he will be in favor of choosing what is good for the community and individual which is implementing smoking ban in public places. Smoking is a bad habit that is harmful to our health though others considered it reduces stress and anxiety. Nonsmokers or secondhand smokers are also at risk from the smoke exhaled by the smoker where they need to be considerate that it will not be good for them. There is a selected area in which smoking is allowed where this will help the individual tobacco usage have the right to smoke. Everyone must cooperate as one to achieve better environment.
- Lacanlale, Jeramie BSNII-B

# data[].attributes.body
I think if Aristotle can respond he will say that he is in favor of the smoking ban because as stated Aristotle's viewpoint when it comes to the community is for everyone's good. in that way, smokers and non-smokers should be participative for the betterment of all. people should understand that they have to compromise to make this world a better place to live. if all of us will only think about what we wanted and be ignorant to other people there will be no betterment and improvement everything will only become worst so we have to, be like Aristotle we have to comply on what is good for everyone - Gerna Maie Anne Cabiling BSN II-A

# data[].attributes.body
For me If aristotle would respond to this such debate, It would be for the common good of the community. Which is the banning of smoking in public places, Smoker's purpose is for their own pleasure only, While the person's who are at high risk of acquiring communicable disease specifically second hand smoke patients do not agree on this. If Aristotle would look at it in different angle banning of smoking in public places will benefit the both party such that When the smoker stops from smoking hence it will be substantial for his/her health, And non-smokers will stop worrying about getting such disease so even if the delicate balance between individual rights and freedom of choice is sacrificed, It would be for the common good and beneficial of all.
Jan Rey Kristofer C.Montealto BNS II-B

# data[].attributes.body
Aristotle would agree and support in smoking ban in public places, than the tobacco usage of individual. This will benefit the individual in the community and would prevent any diseases. Smoking does not only harm the smoker but also those who are nearby, smoking bans will not just helped the community it could help individuals to improve their health. which smoking cause cancer, which is why smoking bans should be implemented in public places. cigarettes contain various types of harmful substances, such as nicotine which is an extremely addictive drug. smoking bans is to ensure the health of individual as well as the environment in the community.
Nicola Mendiola BSN II-B

# data[].attributes.body
aristotle will pursue the smoking bans in public places and prohibit the tobacco users to smoke in public places. All individual have the rights to do anything that stands with their saying. Freedom of people and what satisfied is must, but if you use your rights in abusing other things thay may show unethical to other that cannot be tolerate. As stated by aristotle, how good the community is but if the politics community will lead the decision, there is no sense at all to all good community because it is already controlled by the politicians. You should not take it in a negative if someone restrict you in what you want to do, because they were just concern about your own sake. Freedom and satisfaction should be used as a power in a sensible process don't abuse your power just to get what you want for you to avoid risk in other people's life. We all have an own definition of good within ourselves. If we tolerate smoker to continue doing this because they think it's good for them- it will not result to higher goods.  -Pineda. Nathalie BSN 2-A

# data[].attributes.body
DE GUZMAN, Patricia Ann P.

BSN II-A

In my point of view, Aristotle would support the claims of smoking bans in public areas than the right of individual tabacco usage. Aristotle believe that every person acts based from what they think is good and right. For instance, those who disagree with the smoking ban in public areas are probably the ones who believe that they are entitled of their rights to exercise smoking in such places. As everyone tends to do so, the political community is the one who tries to maintain the balance. This is done in a way of taking charge to do what is good for the whole. It involves creating laws or programs such as smoking ban in order to prioritize the common good, specifically in terms of health. The kind of good that is greater than any concept of an individual about what is right for him or her self.

# data[].attributes.body
According to Aristotle, every community is established with a view to some good. But the state or political community aims at good in a greater degree than any other, and at the highest good. Therefore, the freedom of choice for the people under the state is sacrificed for the greater good and the sake of community's right to good health. Aristotle would respond in a way wherein the people of the state is ensured with public health protection and health is not compromised. The right choice is that the political community will enforced a law in which smoking in public places will be banned due to reason that it does not want to settle for less and risk the health of the public.

Dayrit, Arabella G.
BSN II B

# data[].attributes.body
By reading the quotation of Aristotle, I agree that smoking in public places should be ban.  It will be beneficial to everyone especially for those people who's not smoking, because it can cause serious disease. Also, smoking in public places are harmful to our environment, some are throwing their cigarette butts everywhere and it's not right.                    - Hermogenes, Patricia Mae P.                                                                                                                                                    - -BSNII-B

# data[].attributes.body
I think Aristotle will agree to ban smoking in public places because of what he said that “every community is established with a view to some good”. It is to ensure everyone safety which is good in health and the community. We are not saying to remove the rights of the smokers to prevent them from smoking to establish a good community. Instead, there is a place or area for them to smoke so that the non-smokers will not be affected. Smoking cigarette is dangerous for health which causes diseases that is why we need to separate the smokers and non-smokers.

Ballenas, Shelle Mae

BSN II-A

# data[].attributes.body
BELTRAN - BSNII-B

Aristotle still would percept the same way. Beyond everything, the science of improving one’s health in the community should be the greater focus of all. Anyway, the protection of the health of the families and communities must be of center of attention whereas the individual must be focused as well. As for the banning of the usage of tobacco or any form of cigarette on public sites, he would definitely ratify it. For this will cause environmental problems, health infirmities on those with close contact with smokers wherein the smoke or residual of smoke may contaminate clothes, hair and skin when the cigarette is extinguished. These residues create a toxic mix including cancer causing compounds posing a community health hazard. Conversely, nicotine can be used to be a stimulant and appetite suppressant. It also triggers behavior modification that prompt smokers to eat less. Doing a small act of giving up smoking for the sake of the greater good may benefit. Apart from that, smoking will only be banned on public areas. So I think as long as the community would have a greater benefit, Aristotle will surely approve.

# data[].attributes.body
Based from the quotation given by Aristotle, I think smoking ban in public places is the best choice for since it will not only benefit to one person, but also for the rest of the community. We all know that smoking can cause various diseases to us, not only for the smoker but also to the people around them. I think he would probably say that it is okay to smoke but choose a place where no one else was there and where you can smoke alone. Being a second hand smoker is not good at all also. It is true that there are some people who smoke because it is their coping mechanism or it became their habit. But it is also important to think of other people’s health and don’t be selfish with regards to this matter. I hope that you don't think that your rights are being invalidated when someone told you to go to restricted areas because they were just concern with your health and also their health. Your health will be anyone’s health. So I think Aristotle would probably agree to the smoking ban in all public places.
-Sapao, Patricia S. of BSN II-B

# data[].attributes.body
In regards with the issue between smoke banning versus the right of an individual tobacco usage I think Aristotle would respond by suggesting both parties to talk and amend their concerns for the greater good of everyone. In this case, people may still practice their rights at the same time will not burden others by letting them know they are accountable and responsible for their actions. Smokers will be given their designated place but will still will be reminded of its harmful effects to the body and hoe can it affect other people who might inhale the smoke. Thus he has state that, "every community is association of some kind" and "every community is established with a view to some good" which then illustrates that they can embrace and work on their differences. In line with this, he would still promote something for the common good of everyone, to address and to protect dissimilarities but still able to achieve what will eventually benefit every individual in a community. This movement doesn't neglect the freedom of the individuals but at utmost way it protects the community and promote well being.

-Alabado, Anne Nicole A. BSN II-B

# data[].attributes.body
If Aristotle were to be involved in this debate, I think he would respond in a way that would be simply about whether or not the banning of smoking in public places would contribute to the attainment of the common good or if it were to hinder people in their search for it, since every community aims to obtain what they think is good. I think he would side with the banning of smoking in public more since the argument did not say that smoking itself is forbidden, but only in public places which may affect the health of many. To smoke in public is a question of public interest, and whether or not an individual chooses to smoke at home is a question of their private dealings. On the other hand, Aristotle may also consider the fact that not prohibiting smoking in public could also not be contributory toward the betterment and attainment of perfection in that particular individual. Because of this, I think Aristotle would provide a form of reason that is practical, which we ought to use to make choices that foster our individual well-being and contribute to the common good of the community.
Cayanan, Alyssa Faith R. of BSN 2-B

# data[].attributes.body
As Aristotle stated, "Every community is established with a view to some good." Having that said, I think that Aristotle would agree on the smoking ban in the public places. Because it is for the greater good of the community, it is also an implication of public health which is concerned with ensuring the safety of the "good" of the public. He also said that if all communities aim at some good... everyone will aim at the highest good. With regards to the right and freedom of the individuals who smokes tobacco, it is not totally removed from them. It is only prohibited in the public places to lessen the health risks of the mass, because 2nd hand smoke is more harmful to the health of those who inhale it. The smokers can still smoke in their own private places, and we must educate them further about the dangers that may give to the others if the insist smoking in public places. - LOUIS NICOLE M. MANARANG, 2-A

# data[].attributes.body
Keeping in mind that Aristotle's view on the community is for the highest good and common interest of the people in it, I think he would agree on this topic. Smoking ban does not aim reduce the number of smokers but rather to protect the health of the people. It would decrease unwanted illnesses caused by second hand smoking and also ensure that smokers would only smoke in appropriate ares which also would seem as a way to prevent nasty hazards. With this i, think the decision on the ban would be the right call in his perspective.  Relatively, in my opinion, this decision would also teach smokers to smoke responsively. In a way that they should be mindful of the people around them. Because given that they are already aware of the risk of smoking and that they accept it does not mean that the people who unintentionally inhale the smoke that they put out are ready to accept and pay for the consequences of the smoker's actions. -Manalang, Li-an Danielle M. (BSN II-B)

# data[].attributes.body
I think Aristotle would agree on the debate regarding the smoking ban because smoking cause diseases. It is not just dangerous for the person who smokes but also to non-smokers. Since the primary goal here is to ensure safety of public health. Smoking ban would be a great act to this. Also, I think smoking ban in public places doesn’t affect the individual rights. The thing about this is just you can’t smoke on public places because it may affect other people’s health. But that doesn’t mean you don’t have the rights as an individual to smoke. And we all know that some smokes because they use it as their coping mechanism but as a smoker you need to know your effects of it and act responsibly.

- Garcia, Mary Joy M. (BSN 2-B)

# data[].attributes.body
If ever Aristotle was to respond in the given situation i think that his most close or appropriate response would be that enhancing a public health in a community would need a an individual yet similar goal to achieve such state with that said that every member of the community should do an effort in being involved to steps in reaching the intended goal which is to imply public smoking ban and every member should participate both smokers and non smokers in order to achieve such goal and if even just one person is not determined to reach such goal it will always be impossible for the community to reach the standard they are hoping and dreaming of. With that statement Aristotle clearly says that in order to attain good public health we need to make an effort as individual we cannot just rely on other people because we also belong to the community so if we start with ourselves then a good public health can be obtained.

-CALBANG, ANDREA T.
BSN II-A

# data[].attributes.body
Knowing Aristotle, one of the greatest of all time where his extant writings span a wide range of disciplines, from logic, metaphysics and philosophy of mind, through ethics, political theory, aesthetics and rhetoric, and into such primarily non-philosophical fields as empirical biology.  With this mind he has, I think Aristotle will agree in the banning of smoking in public areas for it may be a risk to the health of the others. There should be a designated place assigned for smokers so that people who do not smoke will not be affected. In his given statement, he mentioned that every community is an association of some kind and every community is established with a view to some good, this means that the community is aiming towards the good and the safety needed to secure the health of the people. Allowing the smoking ban means that people can still smoke whenever they want, however, they must know the designated places for smoking. Through this, we can able to minimize the acquiring of diseases, especially in the thorax and to lessen the transfer of Infection. Smoking ban doesn’t remove the right of the people to smoke, however, it only served as protection to those who doesn’t smoke to lessen any health problems and will also served as a good act for the community.  
-	Arcilla, Nicole Danielle P. (BSN II-A)

# data[].attributes.body
Aristotle is the ancient great philosopher and scientist, who is still considered one of the greatest political, psychological and ethical thinker. Aristotle is an intellectual being who would contemplate and balance between the veracious and erroneous response with the debate. I think Aristotle would consider the ban of smoking in the public for the health safety of others because this is the right thing to do. Aristotle may suggest the smoking area so there should be a balance between the public and the smokers. They still have the right to smoke but in the right area so they will not put other people’s health at risk. Because everyone has a responsibility to each other to make sure the safety of everybody. Not being selfish but for the safety and health improvement of the community.

Jaime, Angel C.

BSN II-A

# data[].attributes.body
The Greek philosopher Aristotle made a significant and lasting contributions to nearly every aspect of human knowledge, from logic to biology to ethics and aesthetics. To my way of thinking, Aristotle would start with the conviction that there is nothing “right” and “wrong” in a public health debate, because the argument is never on the basics of public health but rather its application or management part of it.  Aristotle would find this issues like mode of intervention (vaccine and smoking bans in public places versus the right of individual tobacco usage to exercise their rights to smoke in public places) and its applications to human population are the bone of contention.

Take any public health issue, it has always been surrounded with controversy, public heath professionals cannot agree on one set of intervention not because of individual opinion but because of multifactorial nature of public health problems and their possible interventions. Aristotle would be a great Republican if he's still alive today, as his scientific approach teaches to fish and doesn’t dole out fishes.  Aristotle would want the society to be conceived both as the totality of conditions of human actions and as the result of human actions.

-Dayrit, Ira Camille D.
-BSN 2-A

# data[].attributes.body
In my opinion, Aristotle would advise smoking ban but would still let the individuals to decide for themselves. Because he said that every community aims to achieve some kind of good. You can only consider something as good when the common goal is not forced unto others so, he would explain the importance of public health in his community and why smoking tobacco is harmful not only for themselves but also for others and then let them weigh the consequences and decide for themselves.
-Ofrecia P.J.N. (BSN II-B)

# data[].attributes.body
Having studied Aristotle’s view of politics, we observe that he perceives the good life or happiness as the proper end of the city-state in which recurs throughout politics. He emphasized that every city-state is its sort of community and unique and that each community is established for the sake of what they believe is good. That being said, the community which has the most authority of all and includes all the others aims at the highest good. This is what is referred to as the state or political community. He believes the political community embodies all, and whatever goal is reinforced to achieve the “highest good”, its people shall comply. Although there are conditions in which we should consider might influence his insights on such public interventions that generate politicized legal debates.

As I have recalled my prior knowledge of Aristotle’s human rights theories, he believes in the abuse of power within a political community. He theorized that a government that does not have a system of justice and rights among its citizens is “defective” because all men are subordinated to the ruler and that such a system is necessary for a government to work for the common interest of all people. Consequently, the rights of the people will naturally develop from the creation of a state so that the freedom of each individual is guaranteed. He, therefore, claims that freedom is only guaranteed if there are rights to protect that freedom.

Men are deemed as political animals, therefore they will always want power. If this power does not overlook the freedom and rights of individuals in a particular community, and that their rights could protect this freedom, then it should be guaranteed by the state.

These pre-existing notions of Aristotle on politics and human rights would support that he would not be in favor of guaranteeing the freedom of public smoking since— first, people are able of smoking in their private premises in which nobody else will be compromised, and second, this does not battle against the people’s freedom for it doesn’t neglect their rights to tobacco usage. It is merely a greater degree of good such community endeavors to achieve, and that is the quality health of all people.

John Clarence C. Mangio of BSN2-B

# data[].attributes.body
- De Leon, Frishia R. (BSN II - B)

# data[].attributes.body
I think Aristotles' response is can you consider the health of the people in your surrounding if you take the cigarette?. because even though you smoke in one area they will still smell it. Aristotle wants the safety or to maintain the health of every individual. And For me, Aristotle would definite agree with the over smoking bans in the public places because in the person that user of cigarette will not totally dangerous of the smoke, it's more dangerous to the person that can smell the smoke or known as second hand smoke.

# data[].attributes.body
Aristotle is a famous Greek philosopher who also happened to define moral virtue. He said that moral virtue is a disposition to behave in the right manner and as a mean between extremes of deficiency and excess, which are vices. If he were to respond to this debate, he would first take into consideration both side of the debate with courtesy on hearing all sides and impose that smoking ban in public places does not and in no way would relinquish the right to smoke of individuals who does because we also have the right to responsibility, that we have the duty to other people, and we should protect their rights and freedom as we protect ours. So the solution would possibly be having a smoke areas designated for those who smoke that would be conducive and respectful for all individuals.  ALICANTE, A.K 2B

# data[].attributes.body
Aristotle would probably laugh if he sees this,because he won't even consider smoking bans in public places versus the right of individual tobacco usage to exercise their rights to smoke in public places as a debate, its just that for him  some people just don't have common sense. No matter how you look at it putting yourself and others in danger doesn't do anything good.If they want to smoke they'll have to find a place to do so. People are just too full of themselves they think that their rights are above everyone and everything else. So its obvious that smoking ban in public places is the best choice for him. (Jimenez, II-A)

# data[].attributes.body
Aristotle is known for being a philosopher who believed that the world  was made up of individuals  occurring in fixed natural kinds. He believed that each individual has built-in patterns of development, which help it grow toward becoming a fully developed individual of its kind. I am certain that with this debate Aristotle would choose the latter, knowing  his principles I think he would let people exercise the rights of the individual tobacco usage and their right to smoke in public places. He is a man of his words and will stick by his own principles whether his choice will affect the majority. Instead he would focus on how each individual would respond or how they will behave with their given right, because he is also a firm believer that each individual has their own specific reasons on why they act that way. (reason why they choose to smoke)

DUENAS, TRISHA NICOLE T.
BSN2A

# data[].attributes.body
Given the chance to Aristole in responding with the debate as mentioned above, I probably think that He would agree regarding with the smoking bans in public places. Introducing smoke-free public places in your local government area will contribute to a reduction in exposure to second-hand smoke, educate the community on the dangers of smoking, support current smokers to quit and promote healthy lifestyle choices. But for other people who are smoking, I think they have their own reasons and they should be more responsible for doing that. Therefore, We should accept and respect the choices of other people.
Valencia, Christine Leanna P.  (Bsn II-B)

# data[].attributes.body
We all act accordingly in which way we benefit in the good, it is a no brainer courtesy to a lot of individuals. We live by expecting an outcome of the good. We all assume every good move we make is a good outcome in our lives. Aristotle's perspective is sensational and it promotes wisdom to the public in such manner, I would agree if he debates that coordination and cooperation shall be implemented. We have our rights, yes. But as a community, as what our great Philosopher said "Every community is an association of some kind and every community is established with a view to some good." There are precautions that all of us should follow and as a fact we are even sometimes unconsiously following them because we know on the back of our head it is what's right and just.

Diaz, Alyssa Kimberly B.
BSNII-A

# data[].attributes.body
I assume Aristotle will respond immediately by telling us that, when it comes to our wellbeing, we should consider other aspects of being healthy, it is appropriate to sacrifice definite individual liberty and privileges of choice. Though we value the patient's interests in nursing practice to prevent conflicts. There should be equality and balance to the rules implemented and the rights of every individual. However, we should educate them on the consequences of what will happen if they will not agree to take a certain medication. It is still their choice, whether they are persuaded or not, it is all up to them. Furthermore, every time we give any procedures, discharge, and medication, we give them a consent form. It is also applicable in the community to give them consent or The community needs to have their health status consulted.

De Luna, Patrick Wayne P.
BSN II-A

# data[].attributes.body
Aristotle is one of the wisest men in history and being in such a debate, I believe that before he would make a final decision, he would first analyze the situation of both parties: the community and the people who smoke. It is true the every one of us has the rights in the society we are living in. However, if one of the rights are abused and exercised appropriately, then it is better to weigh what is good for everyone and what is not. If the rights of an individual are already disregarding the safety of the people around him, Aristotle would side with the smoking ban in public places. He would aim to advocate for the good and safety of everyone’s well-being, instead of supporting what is not right. Aristotle would also respond that it is a win-win situation for both parties, if the smoker stops smoking, it would benefit him and at the same time, he would provide safety to the health of others. In my opinion, the point of view of Aristotle would be like this: people tend to believe that it is their right to smoke in public places, but such belief is just a mere obsession and selfish action. It is just an obsession because people thought that they can do whatever they want to do with their rights and not thinking of the consequences that would follow. These smokers would not immediately realize that their obsession is already killing them slowly and even involving innocent people in their selfish actions. Moreover, these smokers are already blinded with their belief that “they have the right to do this and that”, and because of that, it is hard for them to realize that what they are doing is not right, to themselves and the people around them.

MENDOZA, Alexandra Cristen L.
BSN II-A

# data[].attributes.body
Aristotle was known for the father of western logic and he developed a formal system for reasoning, meaning everything happens for a reason. I think Aristotle will support the smoking bans in public. He believed in a formal system and this system is mainly for reasoning which the reason is stop public smoking. Everyone reasons has some good purpose out it. Think about how this can be benefit to us, it reduces second-hand smoking, helps smoker somewhat control what they intake

-       Coronel, Elice Cateleen (BSN2-B)

# data[].attributes.body
Aristotle is known as the first philosopher to develop a formal system for reasoning. I think Aristotle would agree in banning smoking in public areas as a way to protect the health of others since it has been proven that 2nd hand smoking is more dangerous, because as stated by Aristotle “every community is established with a view of good; for everyone always acts in order to obtain that which they think good”. While he would also agree to the idea for assigning designated areas for the smoking community to practice their freedom or their right to tobacco usage. This does not mean taking away their freedom but just giving them a limitation because just like the smoking community has the right to tobacco usage, likewise, the non-smoking community has also the right to protect their health. In the first place, freedom does not literally means being free, but it means that you are free to do your actions but you have to be responsible for the consequences, in this matter a little sacrifice won’t hurt from both parties knowing that this would be their contribution as a good act for the community.
--- Pangilinan, Jhee (BSN2-B)

# data[].attributes.body
Aristotle,  a Greek philosopher and polymath during the Classical period in Ancient Greece, would probobly agree to the smoking bans and would discuss with the community the "right of individual tobacco usage". There are a lot of people out in public and being a secondary smoker is never good. The benefit of the many comes first before individual satisfactions.
~Pangan, A.G.D. (BSN 2-A)

# data[].attributes.body
I think Aristotle would agree from that idea, where smokers were prohibited to smoke in public places. For he believes that everyone should always act in order to obtain which they think is good even this might affect their rights and this is also all about balancing things.  They can still smoke, banning smokers to public places doesn’t mean that their freedom to smoke was illegalize but this only limits them. Smoking doesn’t just affect the smoker itself, but it also can harm the people around them as well as the environment. Smokers shouldn’t only think about their rights or freedom but they should also be mindful that their actions might put someone’s health at risk. We must not just think what is good or want for ourselves but we must also consider and be aware of our actions for the greater good.

- MONTA, Patricia Marie Q. (BSN 2-A)

# data[].attributes.body
I think Aristotle would agree to the smoking bans in public places. He stated that if the community aim at some good, it will aim at some good ina greater degree than any other, and at the highest good. It would mean that the community's health would take precedance over individual rights and freedom of choice. The smoking bans reflects what he stated because even if it is in effect, there is still the choice of the individual to do what he thinks it is good for him but not where he would risk the protection of the public.
- Tilos, Erby BSN II-B

# data[].attributes.body
I think Aristotle would agree on the banning of smoking in public areas and that there should be a designated place for smokers, to distance themselves to those who do not smoke. He said that every community is an association of some kind and every community is established with a view to some good, which means that the community and its people have a connection with one another and that the community aims to achieve a goal for the good of their people. Having a smoking ban will be able to minimize possible sources of infection and disease which may harm an individual. Having a smoking ban does not necessarily mean that people are not allowed to smoke outside their home but instead, there would be a designated place for them to do their vices. A smoking ban is not unfair for it will ensure the safety of people, and will ensure that one’s community is safe for everyone, this would achieve an outcome that is for the good of the community. - Calayag, Louise. BSN 2-A

# data[].attributes.body
I think if Aristotle will be picking between the two arguments, he'll definitely goes to the smoking bans in public places because his priority is the common good of the population. He'll be discouraging people to use such because it affects the totality of a being, specially his/her health. On the other hand, he'll make sure that the rights of every individual should not be validated. I think he'll make a way too on how people, who are smoking, will also prioritize their healths.

MEAGAN PALO BSN2-B

# data[].attributes.body
CANCEL

upload

link

search_web

camera

more_horiz
POST

# data[].attributes.body
Aristotle being a great Greek Philosopher would not engage himself partaking a side that would deteriorate the benefit of the many. Him as a wise philosopher would weight down the options carefully and meticulously. Since he himself had already stated that he aims nothing but the benefit of all, I am confident enough that he would agree with the concept of implementing Smoking Ban in PUBLIC AREAS. Yes, it is a fact that certain tobacco has been proven for its medicinal use, but that does not equate to using it publicly and freely. The use of tobacco has also its own limitations. Considering the right of those people who use tobacco for its medicinal benefit, their rights aren’t being ignored or neglected because what is being implemented here is the “Smoking tobacco in PUBLIC AREAS”. Attaining a safe environment in this module has been discussed and individuals has their own roles and responsibilities and rules and regulations are implemented for the sake of the many which gives us a conclusion that smoking ban is way of maintaining a safe environment.  Hence, this is all based on my opinion and does not pertain to what is right or what will Aristotle would say. ~QUIZON, JOY - BSN II-B

# data[].attributes.body
I believe Aristotle will be very smart about the given circumstances. He is a well known philosopher, who will for sure, evaluate each stand. In my own opinion, Aristotle would refuse to be a part of this narrative, he will solve this issue by offering open-minded solutions. He wont glorify the idea of banning smoking as it opposes to the rights of individuals who smoke. But he wont patronize public smoking as well, since this forces the non-smokers to inhale second hand smoke - risking their lives. Since smokers have their own reasons to smoke, I think Aristotle will promote safe smoking areas that would limit or restrict non-smokers from being affected with second hand smoke. A good community is where everyone understands and validates each others actions and emotions, debating this kind of subject will only be a nuisance from achieving the common good. Since public health is applied not only to large population groups but to individuals as well, Aristotle will be fair about it. Yes, it is very much true that smoking kills, but it doesn't give us the right to judge smokers. It is true that smoking is a choice and could be a form of coping mechanism but it doesn't give us the right to put others in risk. Understanding and adjusting for one another is what really makes a healthy community. But all of this is just my opinion, we will never know what Aristotle will do.

Lorenz Justin Jose | BSN II-B.

# data[].attributes.body
I think Aristotle will choose the arguments that will have a common good for the community also for the environment. Which is the banning of smoking in public places. People who are smoking have their own reasons, but I think they should be more responsible for doing that. Because even though we have an individual rights and choices we must also acknowledge the health of the others. - De Leon, Gian Rosemarie, BSN II-A

# data[].attributes.body
Aristotle would not  'completely ' agree with  the smoking ban. Smoking is recreational for some but detrimental to many. He would probably argue that smokers can still smoke but only into an  authorized,designated area. If smokers don’t care what it does to their bodies, at least they should care that their  behavior affects the health of many innocent by-standers. But,smoking should not force non-smokers to change places or jobs to protect their health. Therefore, smokers should take responsibility of their urges. ~~~~ CARREON,Precious Charlene D. 2-B

# data[].attributes.body
I believe that Aristotle would respond in such a way that doesn't invalidate the rights of every individual freedom of choice and the people who fight for the community's right to good health. Evidently, Aristotle is in favor with the idea of greater good which means embracing what is more healthy for the people. In conclusion, Aristotle would agree to the idea of smoking bans in public places and building designated smoking areas. There are set of rules and ethics that maintain the balance between what is good and what is bad. The action of smoke banning in public areas and not in the totality(e.g. Law that illegalize smoking) balances the good and bad. We all know that smoking is dangerous and even more dangerous to non-smokers. As a person, you don't want to smoke in public places and put the lives of many at risk. It is not right and unethical to do.
Cuizon, Jewell D.

# data[].attributes.body
Aristotle stated that “Every community is an association of some kind and every community is established with a view to some good”  I think what Aristotle was trying to say is The community establishes view to SOME GOOD, which means that there are some restrictions or exceptions to which how a community need to act according to the laws that they had established.  It means that the community establishes this laws according to the greater good and is agreed upon b the community that they are in, not the absolute good so there would be some loopholes to this laws that they make.  Although smoking is bad for your health according to science, as future nurses we really should educate about the pros and cons of smoking if any, Philippines only makes it illegal to smoke if you are underage (some good), and if you apply the same with banning smoking in public places, it does not necessarily  violate the right of an individual to smoke , it just means that there are designated areas where you are allowed to smoke. I find Aristotle statement as wanting us to find balance in the rules and laws that we establish as a community, that is why he used the word “some good”
LAGUNAY, MVC BSN 2A

# data[].attributes.body
If Aristotle is to engage himself in an argument between smoking bans in public places and an individual’s right in tobacco usage, he’ll first identify which argument holds benefit for most if not all of the population. In this case, If he is to choose, there is a huge chance that Aristotle will oppose the idea of an individual’s right in tobacco use. First and foremost, not all are into tobacco and more people demand that usage in tobacco be regulated. Nevertheless, prioritizing public health is what concerns a government and most of a country’s citizens. A selfish act for those who propose and stand firm for their right to tobacco usage but the right thing to do for the welfare of many. If Aristotle goes otherwise — romanticizing an individual’s right to tobacco usage over public health — the effect will assumably be collateral for it will not affect those who oppose the idea but also those who are not directly involved into the argument — children.

-Loanzon, Patricia O. (BSN 2-B)

# data[].attributes.body
The debate concerns the public health. I think Aristotle will respond to such debate by possibly advising the smoking bans in public places. If the right of an individual to smoke in public places will be exercise then, it will put other's health in danger. With that being said, one of our responsibility as an individual is to build a safe environment not just for our own sake but also for others. That for every action that we do, we must think what are the possible consequences that it may result to. In this case, it is for the public's safety to ban smoking in public places.                       - BSN 2-A, FANDIÑO, ALYSSANDRA S.

# data[].attributes.body
Smoking is one of the many causes of deaths around the world and I know everyone is aware of it, but some smokers treat smoking as their coping mechanism and we respect that, they are responsible for their actions whatever may happen to them. However, people around them, some who could not even smell even a bit of the smoke, are more prone to diseases rather than the smokers themselves. In my opinion, I think Aristotle would have stand by banning smoking. Since he is known for standing by the good and welfare of everyone, he will know that smoking is a bad thing for both smoker and the community. Realistically speaking, we all know that even though there are some places where smoking banned already, some still has the ability to sneak in some cigarettes and smoke. Only if both parties will come up to a solution that would benefit everyone, the community will be more at peace, knowing that smokers would still be able to do what they want but at the same time, will not affect the people around them. But how would they be able to achieve that kind of peace if both parties have their own perspective and rights that they want to prove? Good communication and proper understanding, explaining each side and opening their minds for greater solution.

-          BSN 2-A Trizha Jade C. Cruz

# data[].attributes.body
Aristotle would respond by agreeing to ban smoking in public places because public health is concerned with ensuring the safety of the public. Tobacco users and the non-users would benefit by communicating and compromising because even though the tobacco only does negative effects to our health, the public health didn’t ban the tobacco. In addition, they could set some places that has a designated smoking area so the smokers can technically smoke in public. Also, there are more health risk in secondhand smoking. Hence, Aristotle will agree to ban because many vulnerable people will be affected if they allow smoking in public places which are not designed to smoke.
-Paras, Mary Grace C. BSN II-B

# data[].attributes.body
With regards to the debate over smoking bans in public places versus the right of individual tobacco usage to exercise their rights to smoke in public places, I think Aristotle would respond to this debate by agreeing that there should be a balance between rules implemented and rights of an individual. However, Aristotle would respond to this debate by agreeing to smoking bans in public places since he aims for the community to be good regardless of the rights and freedom of choices being sacrificed for the sake of community’s good health. Smoking bans should be implemented since it could affect not only the user but also the people around which greatly harms the community. It could cause many complication even to the second hand smokers to I think that to respect the freedom of an individual using smoking in  public place, he/she should also respect the rights of other citizens around him/her to have peace and have a good environment in the community.
-Santos, Marjorie S. BSNII-A-

# data[].attributes.body
Aristotle is one of the wisest person who have ever lived. If he were to give his opinion regarding the debate, he will most likely say something like this. "Communication is the key. Let all the parties (pro/against) talk and find a common ground they could agree with. They must formulate laws and regulations that is amenable to all. Lawlessness brings chaos, rule of law brings peace". In this particular issue regarding smoking, the solutions that Aristotle would probably advocate are the following: 1. Allot a smoking area in public places like markets, malls, offices, etc. where people can smoke. 2. These designated smoking areas must have plenty of plants surrounding them to absorb the smoke and filter the air to make it safe for humans. 3. Lastly, lets be respectful of other people who do not share our views regarding smoking. Let kindness rule the day to prevent any argument and confrontation.   -BSN II-A Sanchez, Angela Chelzy Ellenor I.

# data[].attributes.body
I think Aristotle will definitely agree that there should be a delicate balance between individual rights however, freedom of choice should be sacrificed if it is for the sake of community’s right to good health because each Individual has a crucial role in creating a safe environment that even if the public health  have done their part for our community to be better, if we still keep on ignoring it, nothing will happen. So i think, Smoking bans in public places should be implemented because it’s bad effect is not only to the one using cigarette in fact, it is more detrimental to the one who can smell it. While in tobacco, even if the scientist have proven that it can be a medication to some people, i still believe the rights of tobacco should just do in private places since i believe they have a certain usage in taking it.

-BSN2-A Canasa, Erika Joy L.

# data[].attributes.body
I think Aristotle would respond with theres a reason for public smokers given a designated area such that those who wish to smoke CN and be in the area of space for public smoking is authorized at any time of the day. Those who wish to not, simply have the chance to just stay away from a smoking area so as to not be within the reach of smokers. Aristotle as a centrist objectivist would probably argue and state that even though he personally dislikes smoking and thinks it is only harmful, degrading and offers no realistic benefit to the human body it is to the individuals and strictly the individual independent’s responsibility to understand and comprehend the full nature of the effects of smoking and is up to them to decide. In other words, smoking is by fact bad, and offers no help if not does the opposite and kills a human slowly. However it is not your life to live. With that being said, your actions should not influence or affect and infringe upon another being if they for one dislike smoking and being in the presence of a smoker, which is why public spaces designated for smoking is allowed and should always have the necessities available should a smoker need such as ash trays or proper cigarette disposals.
- BSN 2-A Pineda, Samantha Nicole T.

# data[].attributes.body
Aristotle said that every community is established with a view to some good. In this debate, I think Aristotle would agree on the smoking bans in public places. Because even though the rights and freedom of an individual is sacrificed, still the goal of this is for the community's good health. As he also said that if all communities aim at some good it eventually aims at highest good. Tobacco can still be done in private places where there aren't people that will be affected. We can still respect the choices of others regarding this but in the end, we have to educate them that this is all for our safety and staying healthy.
- Daus, Erica Sophia M. (BSN 2-A)

# data[].attributes.body
I think Aristotle will respond by telling us that we should consider other aspects of being healthy, it is right to sacrifice some individual rights and freedom of choices when it comes to our health. Although in nursing practice we respect he patient's rights to avoid conflicts, but we should also explain to them what will happen when they do not agree to a certain medication, it is still up to them if they are convinced or not. We provide them consent form at any procedures, discharge and medications. Even in the community, we give consent or the community itself needs a consultation about their health.
- Villanueva, Ruchel Joy B. (BSN 2 - A)

# data[].attributes.body
I think he'd stick with his initial position. After all, public health is the health of a mass of individuals. By that logic, public health is not just serving the collective but the individual as well. If a community aims at the good then why should not it's members aim at the same objective? Smoking bans sure is a struggle for some who depend on nicotine for whatever reason, and they are held accountable for their health statuses. Should they already know this, I think doing with a little sacrifice can help not only them but the people around them... if they choose to ruminate enough. Besides, it isn't smoking by and large anyway, just public places. ~ ARCELO, Krystle (BSN1-A)

# data[].attributes.body
Question for Reflection via Padlet page of MyClass

“Every community is an association of some kind and every community is established with a view to some good; for everyone always acts in order to obtain that which they think good. But, if all communities aim at some good, the state or political community, which is the highest of all, and which embraces all the rest, aims at good in a greater degree than any other, and at the highest good.” -- Aristotle (384-323 B.C.)

Public health is concerned with ensuring the safety of the public’s “good”--for example, through protection from hazards such as known infectious diseases where administration of vaccinations ensures population and public protection. Such public interventions often inspire highly politicized legal debate, where the delicate balance between individual rights and freedom of choice is sacrificed for the sake of community’s right to good health. One such debate is over smoking bans in public places versus the right of individual tobacco usage to exercise their rights to smoke in public places. How do you think Aristotle would respond to such a debate?