Should Fireworks be Legal?

Since fireworks are mainly only used on a couple of nights per year, I don't think that noise pollution is a very big problem, though I think that setting them off in urban/suburban areas is very easy to do unsafely, and restrictions should be placed on where they can be done (for instance, not within x feet of trees, buildings, etc.), similar to laws surrounding fire pits in the city where I live. I do think such laws exist though.

 

I think you could use that rationale for anything though. No harm > Little harm > A lot of harm.

If we had bear-baiting or dog-fighting one night a year as a national holiday, I'd oppose it on the principle that the well-being to the sentient creatures involved is not worth the sacrifice for our own entertainment. Whether it's once a day, a week, a year, or 'once but never again'.

More practically, I can only assume you oppose bullfighting? If it became an annual event in [insert country you live here], I don't suspect you'd use "Since bullfighting is only once a year, I don't think the 'negatives' are a big problem" as a means to sincerely defend it's practice (though you can set me right if you would).

If we're going to use 'It's only a few nights a year', we can substitute 'fireworks' for any spectacle that humans find entertaining while it also decreases the well-being of billions of organisms worldwide (both human and non-human).

The beauty of our species is that we don't settle for 'okay'. We strive for 'optimal'.

The only thing I can think of that might support what you're saying, is that the rarer an event is, the more people (that do enjoy it) will enjoy it. So... the longer we go without a fireworks display, the more valuable having one becomes. I still think it's pretty clear cut that it's not worth the unnecessary suffering of billions, but it's interesting to consider (I think).

 

I would also, because those involve the death of the animal(s) involved.

I was thinking more along the lines of: Since there is very little harm, and the payoff is great, it's worth it.

Bit of a loaded question, but I do.

They are much more substantial negatives though. Since you're literally stabbing a bull to death, it's hugely inhumane, as opposed to frightening some dogs, squirrels, etc.

I would agree. That's why open discussion is so important.

 

Righto. So your reasoning for 'keeping fireworks legalized' is that the pay-off outweighs the cost, to sentient creatures. That when they're used on; Bonfire Night, Independence Day, Christmas, New Year, etc? That the happiness it brings on those nights trumps the sadness and suffering to other sentient creatures. Is that correct?

Bit of a loaded question, but I do.

Absolutely loaded, but I'm glad you do!

They are much more substantial negatives though. Since you're literally stabbing a bull to death, it's hugely inhumane, as opposed to frightening some dogs, squirrels, etc.

I'm going to return to this, once I have clarification on the above.

 

Idk about where anyone else lives, but where I live, we really only use fireworks on July 4th and New Years.

I would say yes, to an extent. Scaring some animals isn't too huge a cost to pay, probably for the same reasons we don't see a huge movement of veterans to ban fireworks to protect those with PTSD.

 

This was a while ago.

I wasn't saying that fireworks should be allowed past 11:30 just because it doesn't seem late to me, I was just making a comment on how it didn't seem that late (I should've made that clearer). What I said after that is what my argument was; I don't think fireworks should generally be launched that late/past the time that an area would normally allow loud noises (in fact, I'd support the idea of fireworks being banned on every day except for the Fourth of July and New Year's Eve), but I think that people can tolerate it when fireworks are only allowed late for two nights of the year. If people know that fireworks are allowed on those two nights (and those two nights only), they can plan to endure it when those nights come. Furthermore, fireworks are so big in the United States, that banning them outright would be a cultural shock; at least for now, I think that allowing them on to be launched late on New Year's Eve and the Fourth of July, but banning them on other days would be the best compromise.

--- Double Post Merged, Sep 28, 2016, Original Post Date: Sep 28, 2016 ---

They could be banned in rural areas and in suburban areas that have a lot of forestry and wildlife; however, I think that they should remain allowed in urban areas and in suburban areas that are near urban areas, without a lot of wildlife.

 

I don't necessarily believe this is the logical solution. After all, if we are concerned about it affecting animals in general, it make sense to ban fireworks in rural areas, but where does that leave us? Shooting off rockets in the middle of close buildings doesn't sound like a great idea, either.

 

In many areas, there are plenty of suburban and urban areas that are close to major urban areas; away from rural areas, meaning that there's not much wildlife, but outside of major urban areas, meaning that there aren't many tall buildings.

 

@Supreme_Overlord but I think that people can tolerate it when fireworks are only allowed late for two nights of the year.

Well, I can **tolerate** it. I think most people can. But that's not what's being discussed, right? Someone put me into check if they can, but I thought this was about the ethics of launching fireworks and whether or not it's moral to do so?

If people know that fireworks are allowed on those two nights (and those two nights only), they can plan to endure it when those nights come.

Why should I have to 'endure' it, though? Or more importantly, why is it considered moral for it to be at my expense? The beauty of individual liberty is that I get to control what happens to my body. 'The freedom to swing your arms ends at my face', all that good stuff. Fireworks objectively cross that line, as I can't just choose to ignore it.

How would you argue which nights are acceptable to launch fireworks on, and which arn't? Isn't the line that's being drawn a little arbitrary? You want 2 nights a year, what about 3? What about 1? What about the time period within the days that are allowed? How loud does an area have to normally be, for it to be allowed fireworks? Is there a cap on the noise of the fireworks, if so, what? etc etc

Furthermore, fireworks are so big in the United States, that banning them outright would be a cultural shock; at least for now, I think that allowing them on to be launched late on New Year's Eve and the Fourth of July, but banning them on other days would be the best compromise.

Difficult, absolutely. But that's the price we pay for moving society forward in any aspect. Positive change never comes without ruffling feathers.

They could be banned in rural areas and in suburban areas that have a lot of forestry and wildlife; however, I think that they should remain allowed in urban areas and in suburban areas that are near urban areas, without a lot of wildlife.

As mentioned before, how do you draw that line? How much wildlife is required for a ban to be imposed? Is there a limit on the number of the fireworks? What about the cap on the amount of noise they create? Isn't human life more important than animal life, so why would we want to launch them in an environment in which it inconveniences far more humans than animals? What about domestic pets? etc etc

--- Double Post Merged, Sep 29, 2016, Original Post Date: Sep 29, 2016 ---

Given the fact that you (@Ranger0203 ) accept, 'keeping fireworks legalized' is moral because the pay-off outweighs the cost, to sentient creatures. The happiness it brings on those nights trumps the sadness and suffering to other sentient creatures.

...and having followed that up with:

"They are much more substantial negatives though. Since you're literally stabbing a bull to death, it's hugely inhumane, as opposed to frightening some dogs, squirrels, etc."

...I find the situation we find ourselves in rather perplexing.

Stab 1 sentient creature to death for the enjoyment of 10,000's of people? -- Ugh. Awful.

Frighten 100s or 1,000's of sentient creatures per firework show, both domestic and wild, as well as almost certainly causing the inadvertent death of a few (heart attacks, running into roads, projectiles hitting animals, etc), along with the decrease in well-being to humans (Children, elderly, night-shifts and ill adults being woken up. Those that are scared by fireworks. Those that are personally inconvenienced+aggravated by the noise.), for the entertainment of 100s of the rest of us? (if that?) -- That's okay.

My biggest point though, is that we shouldn't merely contrast the good with the bad, because you need to factor in 'Opportunity Cost'. Most of us that enjoy a good firework show would still be enjoying ourselves without it. Just to a slightly lesser degree. Whereas we get to cut out all of those negatives I've described earlier (without cutting out all of the entertainment that humans were having while the fireworks would have been going off).

--- Double Post Merged, Sep 29, 2016 ---

@Ranger0203

 

In Illinois (where i reside) They are illegal but everyone has em and i even know some cops who do
so ya they should be legal

 

For the majority of people, I wouldn't necessarily say that it's "at their expense." I mean, fireworks don't personally bother or affect me; assuming that I wanted to go to sleep early and refrain from celebrating on New Year's Eve or the Fourth of July, the fireworks would be unlikely to affect me doing so. Assuming that most people need it quieter to sleep, I still don't think that it's that much of an inconvenience, especially on New Year's Eve, since most people don't have to work the next day. Perhaps allowing them on the Fourth of July is too arbitrary and/or too much of an issue, since most people have to work the next day, but what if we only allowed them on New Year's Eve? On a night where most people are up until at least midnight and not many people have to work the next day, is allowing them really a bad thing?

We would want to launch them in an environment with more humans because they're a much smaller inconvenience to humans. Most humans enjoy partaking in fireworks and the rest are, for the most part, only moderately inconvenienced. Wild animals can be extremely frightened by fireworks; humans, on the other hand, can be a bit annoyed or kept up a bit late. So, I'd argue that wild animals face more of an inconvenience. Regarding domestic pets, if someone had a pet that they knew couldn't handle the noise, they could take this pet to an area where fireworks aren't allowed.

 

@Supreme_Overlord -- For the majority of people, I wouldn't necessarily say that it's "at their expense."
The contrary wasn't in question. I'm asking why people have to be inconvenienced, at all. I'm talking about the net decrease in well-being to sentient creatures, humans included.

I mean, fireworks don't personally bother or affect me; assuming that I wanted to go to sleep early and refrain from celebrating on New Year's Eve or the Fourth of July, the fireworks would be unlikely to affect me doing so.
Likewise. Though I'm not sure what this has to do with the argument.

Assuming that most people need it quieter to sleep, I still don't think that it's that much of an inconvenience, especially on New Year's Eve, since most people don't have to work the next day.
But I don't think this addresses my argument. It's moreso a point of your own. Now, we're talking about 'how inconvenienced people are', which is a good discussion, don't get me wrong (And imo, whether people have work or not? I don't think that should allow ourselves as a society to be deliberately inconsiderate towards one another.). However, in the argument you quote, I'm referencing liberal values. The guiding principle behind almost every content Western society. You're you. I'm me. I leave you to your devices, if you leave me to mine. Have a party, drink some brewskis, have a ball! Just don't involve me. It protects me from bugging you just because me and my mates are having a great time, and visa versa.

If any day can be argued for, it's NYE. I'm with you there. What I want to discuss, is whether we should be launching them, period.

> Someone put me into check if they can, but I thought this was about the ethics of launching fireworks and whether or not it's moral to do so?
Is this true btw?

We would want to launch them in an environment with more humans because they're a much smaller inconvenience to humans. Most humans enjoy partaking in fireworks and the rest are, for the most part, only moderately inconvenienced. Wild animals can be extremely frightened by fireworks; humans, on the other hand, can be a bit annoyed or kept up a bit late. So, I'd argue that wild animals face more of an inconvenience.

I thought you believed we should prioritize our own species? At least, that's what I thought you were arguing for in the other thread.

As laid out with Ranger, is it 'right' to frighten 100s of domestic pets as well as possibly causing the inadvertent death of a one or two (heart attacks, running into roads, projectiles hitting birds , etc), along with the decrease in well-being to humans (Children, elderly, night-shifts and ill adults being woken up. Those that are scared by fireworks. Those that are personally inconvenienced+aggravated by the noise.), for the entertainment of 100s of the rest of us? I'm honestly not sure which is worse. Possibly rural, but I'm unsure. The cost seems large relative to the benefit with both cases.

Regarding domestic pets, if someone had a pet that they knew couldn't handle the noise, they could take this pet to an area where fireworks aren't allowed.

That seems like a step too far man. You've just articulated a more polite version of, "If you don't like it, f*** off, yeah?". You've stated on more than 1 occasion that fireworks don't inconvenience people much, yet you're now arguing that pet owners with skittish animals of their own? The onus is on them to move, to accommodate everyone else. To physically move, with their pets, to a rural area for the duration of the event. How does this work on NYE? Are they supposed to stay out in rural area until 3am? Should they get a hotel in a rural area? Camp? How is this supposed to work mate?

 

I don't know about where you live (England, I think?), but where I live (Southern California) our largest use of fireworks is July 4th. It's basically our only use of fireworks, actually, aside from the odd one (1) on New Years. Without fireworks, there isn't much to do on the Fourth. There is no New Year's party, or Christmas gifts, etc., and while many have a BBQ in the evenings, the larges tradition is the fireworks. It's what nearly everyone has fun doing.

 

But you'd still be hanging out with friends and family relaxing.

If there wern't any fireworks at a BBQ, your 'happiness quotient' won't go from a 9/10 to a 5/10. It's still a pretty good experience. Maybe just an 8/10 or 7/10.

But if you're being woken up by fireworks? Disturbed by them? Animals are frightened stiff by them? We're talking about hundreds or thousands of creatures whose experience diminishes far more than it increases for proponents of fireworks.

Either way, I just find it jarring that the initial example seemed easy for you (et al) when it's 1 non-human sentient creature. But when there are 100s or 1000s of them, as well as humans too? It's seemingly easy in the *other* direction. I just find that peculiar.

 

It's because death is permanent (the bull dies in bullfighting), intentional, and predictable (the bull probably figures out things aren't going so well.), whereas the fear passes after the moment (night).

 

Yah its the same where my grandma lives in virignia, cops either dont care or have better things to do.

 

Legal or not i still want to beat the daylights out of the numb nuts who light them off at midnight, in the middle of fall, with nothing big to celebrate. Go light those mortars inside where its quieter or better yet stick an m80 in your ear and see who takes longer to get their hearing back.

 

If you bothered by this, then you may logically debate why they should be illegal. As far as I know, nobody here is going to change their mind because they read that.

So far, this has been a fairly logical analysis of something quite contrary to what most of society believes (that fireworks are fine).
(Edited)

 

I think (or at least hope) he's just joking mate.

 

I would assume it to not be so, but perhaps.

On topic, I would agree that the vast majority of fireworks fall under the type that should be illegal. The deciding factor, in my opinion, would be the volume of the fireworks. A possible compromise for this would be restricting the level of decibels for it to be legal. Take, for example, the small tops that only spin in the street, flashing colors. These paticular variants produce very little noise, focusing more on the colors, so I don't see a reason why they should be banned. All in all, that is just a possible compromise.