The New York case though does not come near this because clearly the means initiated by the government are just and proper. The end or overall utility is not only to prevent non-smokers from the ill effects of second hand smoke but lessen the smoking of smokers. Overall, the end result sees a healthier population and between the rights of the smokers and their health and well-being, the goodness of the action is maximized. It is not even a choice between the "devil and the deep blue sea" but a choice between a bad habit (smoking" and a good one (non-smoking or minimizing it).

From the deontological perspective, which can be differentiated from utilitarianism wherein deontology calls for the rightness or wrongness of the action as opposed to utilitarianism's rightness or wrongness of the ends or consequences. By and large through, banning smoking in bars and restaurants can be deemed...
[ View Full Essay]