Alright, so two people can touch eachother, and Al Gore isn't a terrorist. But I refuse to stop arguing with people that are smarter than me until I can win.
This was inspired by an episode of the television show, The Moment of Truth. A paramedic was asked if fat people repulsed him, his answer was yes. This led me to question whether fat people repulsed me, my conclusion is for myself only but it has led me to more questions, mainly, are the obese immoral?
I am sure everyone can say, that they believe that allowing another person to starve to death, specifically children, is immoral, or, not conforming to the patterns of conduct usually accepted or established as consistent with principles of personal and social ethics.
A normal adult consumes 2427 calories a day, 18% less than an obese adult.
Since a baby needs 100 calories a day, every second day an obese person is effectively responsible for the death of a baby in a third world country. That is 182 babies every year. People are given the death penalty, for many less than that.
Since a baby needs 100 calories a day, every second day an obese person is effectively responsible for the death of a baby in a third world country
lol
Okay, not gonna touch that part, but the question itself is interesting because this is commonly the kind of judgement that is in fact passed upon those who are overweight, implicitly.
Now that we are asking this question directly, we have an opportunity to examine this feature of culture.
I truly do believe the obese are immoral. They consume more calories then necessary for daily survival, knowing that there are others in the world dying of starvation. However I do believe this is the product of our society, which focuses on the idividual, rather than the group.
I dont think the obese are immoral for this reason. That there are many other groups just like them by this logic. You say they are immoral because by their habit they killl other people. Firstly if they didnt eat all that McDonalds the company wouldnt ship it to Africa so i think its unfair to say what you said. However if u think they are immoral then you must think anyone who does something that kills people inadvertadly like smokers or alcoholic or sexually addicted people with STD's. I wouldnt count these people as immoral just addicted to something. People who are addicted dont hve as much control as they think and many many obese peoples problems are as much phsycological as physical. However I know of the wonder cure for obesity drumroll......
MAKE THE DOORS TO MCDONALDS RELE RELE SMALL SO FATTIES CANT GET INSIDE AND EAT THEMSELVES TO DEATH. SIMPLE BUT EFECTIVE.
I was going to make the same point Asherlee, but I was also going to say this: food the doesn't get eaten doesn't magically teleport to third world countries. Unconsumed food is turned into waste. The amount of food we eat doesn't effect how much food they eat. My opinion is that it is quite disgusting for somebody to stuff themselves to obesity, but they are the only ones that have to deal with the consequences of their actions (except, in more extreme cases, doctors). This, in my opinion, does not make them immoral.
I've never really thought about this... ever! What an intriguing question. I definitely don't like the argument applied to food to starving people - even in this country. There is enough wasted food without obese people consuming more than their fair share of Big Macs. But if we approach this from another angle, say a religious one, we might have an interesting argument. The simply fact is that gluttony is a sin in at least 4 of the 5 major world religions and since morality is (loosely) based on these religious standards, could we not argue that being obese due to simple overeating is immoral?
P1) Gluttony is a sin P2) If something is a sin, then it is immoral / Gluttony is immoral - MP 1,2
It is fairly simple to syllogistically apply this to obesity. The argument fails if you reject Premise 2 (which I do, personally) but it at least seems to be a bit compelling.
this is what I'm saying, they are NOT the only ones who have to deal with the consequences of their actions. In many countries food is there, but it is extremely overpriced and cannot be afforded by the masses. Riots are breaking out in Arab states like Egypt, Jordan, and Yemen. The food is there, its just unaffordable.
@ Asherlee
is Immoral such a broad term? Not conforming to conduct usually consistent with principles of personal or social ethics
For something to be immoral it has to be something either you know is wrong or everyone else knows is wrong. Seems straightforward to me.
@ Asherlee
My point is all about people only consuming the amount of food they NEED, a person with hyperthyroid disease therefore needs alot more food. In wich case, it is perfectly alright for them to eat what they need. And a person with hypothyroid disease is quite likely to have no symptoms at all, and if diagnosed can be treated with a pill every so often, and a visit from the docotor once or twice a year. So I do not see how thyroid disease would be immoral.
@ Moegreche
Personally I do not bleieve that if something is a sin it is immoral. But this would be enough for many people.
Actually, it isn't the amount of food a person with thyroid disease needs. It is the the problem that they consume "normal" amounts of food, yet still gain weight. How can something like that be considered immoral?
Now I am confused. If we are talking about HYPERthyroid disease, I am under the impression that a person with thyroid disease needs more food. Energy is used up faster and metabolism speeds up.
But if we are talking about HYPOthyroid disease, where the body needs less engergy and metabolism slows down. Yes they would eat the same amount but do they NEED this same amount of food? With less energy being used by the body, and slower metabolism, should they still be eating the same amount of food as normal?
And with this, couldn't hypothyroid disease be considered a positive thing? I'll answer my own question, probably not. As it also causes hair loss, muscle weakness, and well...lots more.
Since a baby needs 1000 calories a day, every second day an obese person is effectively responsible for the death of a baby in a third world country. That is 182 babies every year. People are given the death penalty, for many less than that.
But you still can't blame that on the obese people, cause first of all like woody said the food would have never ended up feeding babies and secondly it was the obese persons fault for it it was the parents of the babies, cause they were the people who decided to have the baby even though they knew that they couldn't feed it properly.
But still I would consider being obese immoral, but I don't think you can fully blame the person who is obese because every one has a different metabolism rate most obese people have slow metabolism so they don't have to eat as much to gain weight, when I on the other hand have a really fast one, I eat about 3000 calories most days at least cause I'm trying really hard to gain weight for football but I still don't gain any weight. (I'm not over weight either I'm under weight) But then when you think about that could I be considered immoral for that?
That statistic was just meant to put into perpective the calorie wastage of most obese people. And how when you put that into perspective, how many lives could be saved by with these calories. This is not about the poeple who had these children it is about the question fo wether the obese person is being selfish and/or immoral.
Alright, let me point this out. Fat s energy stored for when you need it later. People with slower metabolism, need less food, but they eat the same amount as everyone else, building up this stored enrgy that they do NOT NEED. It is fine if you eat mroe because you have fast metabolism, and your body needs more energy.
@ ubertuna
There are still some obese people, but you are right not very many. And when it comes to unconsumed food turning into waste, it doesnt HAVE to. I am not taling about the half eaten hamburgers, and cookies with one bite out of them. I am talking about the actual entire boxes of cereal eaten that the body didn't need. If these were compiled and given to the starving would we not save many a life?
