This question came about over a discussion my brother and I had about whether dogs should be on leashes when outside. We both agreed that yes, they should, for several reasons, but that’s not the point.
Let’s use a hypothetical to better illustrate the question. Imagine that there’s a perfume - vanilla, for example - that doesn’t bother you at all (you don’t like nor dislike it), but that is very upsetting to some people, and can even cause some adverse reactions (allergies or something). In this hypothetical, based on the negative effects, you agree that vanilla perfumes should be banned. Currently, however, they are allowed.
You’re walking down the street, and randomly smell someone passing you by and they’re wearing a vanilla perfume.
Would that upset you? Why, or why not?
My answer is yes, without a doubt. Even though the smell itself doesn’t bother me, the fact someone would wear that perfume and not only potentially upset others, but put them in danger, is upsetting.
My brother, however, would say no! He couldn’t explain his reasoning to me.
I know this is a little convoluted, but I hope I got my question across.
Eating an allergen loaded sandwich to yourself - A-OK.
Coating yourself in allergens and going on tour - No.
Banning an allergen because a small fraction of the population suffer - Also No.
For matters of personal preference, I would invite the offended to suck it up and deal with it. For anything with consequences beyond offense, each individual situation is nuanced and common sense should apply. Maybe don’t eat that PB&J just before meeting a bunch of people for the first time.
Well, that’s why I said you already agreed with the banning, as part of the hypothetical. Dang, I really feel like quite a few people got kind of hooked on that… I asked this in a Discord server and several people just said “well I wouldn’t want it banned.”
Just out of curiosity - and some frustration - what do you think would be a good abstraction for asking this question?
Regardless, sounds like a reasonable answer.
Edit: Wait, now I’m confused.
Do you think coating yourself in allergens and going on tour is OK or not? And is banning an allergen because of a small fraction of the population OK or not?
Sorry, should have been clear. Lethal allergen tour = bad. Banning completely = also bad.
My main point was that there is a line between discomfort and danger. That line can move based on the situation, so it is awkward to abstract without getting down to specifics.
If say 5% of the population suddenly developed a tendency to go into anaphylactic shock on exposure to vanilla, then you could easily see it disappearing from fragrances altogether and becoming a non-problem in that regard. Yet it would still have culinary use and join many friends on the bolded ingredient lists on food.
There is a turnover point (that I cannot explicitly define) where the onus is on the afflicted to ensure their own safety, rather than the population at large going out of their way to ensure it.
I am fortunate to have no issues like this. In 5% Vanilla-Death-Land, the smell of the stuff would still give me pause, as I probably know someone who could well die from the idiot that just walked in the door honking of it.
If the same person instead just brought in a vanilla milkshake, I probably wouldn’t bat an eye.