Health and fitness as a moral decision

[mprevost]

I've been working through this idea that pursuing health and fitness is a moral decision and that every unhealthy decision is an immoral one. I don't mean to say that you're a bad person if you make unhealthy decisions. What I mean is those unhealthy decisions have known negative consequences for our family members our community and society. I have lots of reasons in my head, but I would be interested in your thoughts about this.

 

[offwidth]

I've been working through this idea that pursuing health and fitness is a moral decision and that every unhealthy decision is an immoral one. I don't mean to say that you're a bad person if you make unhealthy decisions. What I mean is those unhealthy decisions have known negative consequences for our family members our community and society. I have lots of reasons in my head, but I would be interested in your thoughts about this.

Well… this is likely to be one of these can of worms topics…

Defining what is an ‘unhealthy’ decision, or what constitutes a ‘negative consequence‘ is going to be at the crux of the question.

 

[Adachi]

In philosophy, in general, the ability to calculate morality requires a preeminent substrate of values.

So, as to whether a decision, or action can be regarded as moral, the answer is a qualified maybe. A calculated answer to that question is dependent on what that person values.

 

[Steve Freides]

I've been working through this idea that pursuing health and fitness is a moral decision and that every unhealthy decision is an immoral one. I don't mean to say that you're a bad person if you make unhealthy decisions. What I mean is those unhealthy decisions have known negative consequences for our family members our community and society. I have lots of reasons in my head, but I would be interested in your thoughts about this.

Our bodies requires maintenance, and that maintenance includes acquiring a modicum of health and fitness. Choosing not to do that will ultimately cost others and not just the person themselves but I don't think you can call that immoral. Selfish, yes, and irresponsible, too. But it's a slippery slope to go from accusing someone of shirking a communal responsibility to accusing them of immorality. One must always balance individual freedom with what's best for the group - how and where each of us chooses to draw that line is individual and best implemented in a free society by allowing people their choice of worship and allowing them to vote as a way of influencing public policy.

JMO.

-S-

 

[offwidth]

Our bodies requires maintenance, and that maintenance includes acquiring at a modicum of health and fitness. Choosing not to do that will ultimately cost others and not just the person themselves but I don't think you can call that immoral. Selfish, yes, and irresponsible, too.

Good point… but the converse can be true as well. Choosing to maintain our bodies by acquiring health and fitness can also cause negative impacts to those around us.

 

[Dydo]

I recently read a humorous article in my country that the most harmful people to society are cyclists. And this is because many of them live healthy lives, and this financially hits the manufacturers and sellers of cigarettes, alcohol and junk food. Apart from that, these people don't drive, and many of them, mainly the older ones, have already gotten rid of their cars. Which means these people don't pay car tax, don't pay for annual MOT, don't pay for auto parts and don't buy fuel. They don't pay for insurance, and they don't pay fines for violations. They do not pay the parking fee in the central part of the city. They do not have to use medical services. And this thing is estimated at tens of millions of losses for society

 

[Steve Freides]

Good point… but the converse can be true as well. Choosing to maintain our bodies by acquiring health and fitness can also cause negative impacts to those around us.

Indeed, any activity can have its positive and negative sides, so I assumed for the purpose of this discussion that the net effect of acquiring health and fitness is overall positive. I'm trying to imagine how it could be an overall negative, and my thought is that the only negative pursuit of health and fitness is one that only appears to be about that but is instead about obsessive competitiveness or other so-called hidden agenda and not truely about making a healthier body and mind through the pursuit of fitness.

-S-

 

[Bill Lets]

I am in the silent minority. I believe that man is a created being. My life is not my own it is given unto me by God. Yet at the same time I am to be a good steward of my body even though I can not add one minute unto my life. God gives food and it may be enjoyed with thanks giving unto Him. Exercise is not forbidden but neither is our body to be an idol, something more important than God himself. From this/my perspective man can not know what is truly moral apart from the commandments in the book of Exodus chapter twenty. I know this angers some, it is not meant to offend. I know there are more that believe this on this board but are ashamed and afraid of being laughed at or shunned.

Thanks,

 

[offwidth]

Indeed, any activity can have its positive and negative sides, so I assumed for the purpose of this discussion that the net effect of acquiring health and fitness is overall positive. I'm trying to imagine how it could be an overall negative, and my thought is that the only negative pursuit of health and fitness is one that only appears to be about that but is instead about obsessive competitiveness or other so-called hidden agenda and not truely about making a healthier body and mind through the pursuit of fitness.

-S-

I know of several domestic relationships where one partner has some level of negative feelings about their partners fitness activities. The so-called and proverbial ‘golf widow’ comes to mind. True, in some of these cases there may be other underlying issues. But I do know some otherwise very loving and supportive couples where one of of the partners has real anguish when the other engages in their chosen activity. (Usually climbers….)

 

[silveraw]

this is likely to be one of these can of worms topics

I think it says something about me when my first instinct was to form an argument about how the best moral option is to die as soon as possible.... Just to see if we can turn it from a can of works into a barrel.
But refraining from the intrusive thoughts...

pursuing health and fitness is a moral decision and that every unhealthy decision is an immoral one.

I think there are two ways that this can go.
Making decisions based on values is always a great decision!
But.
People have this nasty habit of wanting to feel holier than thou. I could very easily see this devolving into "People who don't spend as much time thinking about health and fitness as me are lesser moral beings."
Then you have to deal with going through life being a [insert appropriate term here]. Nobody wants that.

Another big problem would end up being disordered eating, body dismorphia, and the other issues that go along with that. "I ate cake and must be punished for it" is not a great place to be. Ironically it is not a healthy place to be either. But for whatever reason, people tend to forget that mental health is a thing. If you ever dig into bodybuilding there are a ton of people who have to go into recovery and years of therapy because of this exact thinking. They don't feel like they are good people if they are over 5% bodyfat. Add a moral imperative on top of that would only magnify it.

One of the important signs of disordered eating is a feeling of guilt for wanting and consuming "bad" foods.

On the surface I don't think it is a bad idea... But there is certainly a slick slope if you don't put mental health above physical fitness and nutrition.

For example, a while back I posted a study that looked at intermittent fasting and eating disorders. Many of the comments were people stating a disordered eating pattern followed by "and you are trying to say that is a bad thing?! thats ridiculous!" I could see that being the norm in this scenario.

 

[HarryBergers]

I recently read a humorous article in my country that the most harmful people to society are cyclists. And this is because many of them live healthy lives, and this financially hits the manufacturers and sellers of cigarettes, alcohol and junk food. Apart from that, these people don't drive, and many of them, mainly the older ones, have already gotten rid of their cars. Which means these people don't pay car tax, don't pay for annual MOT, don't pay for auto parts and don't buy fuel. They don't pay for insurance, and they don't pay fines for violations. They do not pay the parking fee in the central part of the city. They do not have to use medical services. And this thing is estimated at tens of millions of losses for society

Haha! I was just about to say a "wouldn't it be amoral to fail to contribute to the economy so much?" kind of post.

Taking health into your own hands?! Needing less medical interventions, like medications and visits. What hubris! Eating in a way that isn't approved by the Heart Association of America, et al!

Because of how, allegedly, antisocial being healthy is in western cultures, it may actually be seen as amoral to buck the curve. Beef is seen as a crime against nature, and along with physical culture.. some bonafide degenerates are trying to publish papers suggesting a link between these activities and being racist or something. It seems like engineered social pressure wants us sick and dying to support an economic machine that has done nothing but make us sick and dependant. All while they're karmically superior, because after all, we are doing it to ourselves...

What a fun topic!

 

[Steve Freides]

I think it says something about me when my first instinct was to form an argument about how the best moral option is to die as soon as possible....

I would like to think that many of us attempt to give the world more than we take.

-S-

 

[Matt_lux]

I recently read a humorous article in my country that the most harmful people to society are cyclists. And this is because many of them live healthy lives, and this financially hits the manufacturers and sellers of cigarettes, alcohol and junk food. Apart from that, these people don't drive, and many of them, mainly the older ones, have already gotten rid of their cars. Which means these people don't pay car tax, don't pay for annual MOT, don't pay for auto parts and don't buy fuel. They don't pay for insurance, and they don't pay fines for violations. They do not pay the parking fee in the central part of the city. They do not have to use medical services. And this thing is estimated at tens of millions of losses for society

Let me guess.. Netherlands ?

 

[silveraw]

I recently read a humorous article in my country that the most harmful people to society are cyclists. And this is because many of them live healthy lives, and this financially hits the manufacturers and sellers of cigarettes, alcohol and junk food. Apart from that, these people don't drive, and many of them, mainly the older ones, have already gotten rid of their cars. Which means these people don't pay car tax, don't pay for annual MOT, don't pay for auto parts and don't buy fuel. They don't pay for insurance, and they don't pay fines for violations. They do not pay the parking fee in the central part of the city. They do not have to use medical services. And this thing is estimated at tens of millions of losses for society

There was a classic tobacco company study that showed increased rates of smoking reduced long term healthcare costs for everyone.

 

[HarryBergers]

On the surface I don't think it is a bad idea... But there is certainly a slick slope if you don't pur example, a while back I posted a study that looked at intermittent fasting and eating disorders. Many of the comments were people stating a disordered eating pattern followed by "and you are trying to say that is a bad thing?! thats ridiculous!" I could see that being the norm in this scenario.

I made it a point to point out that that study in Brazil could only have come to the conclusions it could due to who the subjects were and the environment they are in. The weight of social pressure in my estimation is the worst reason to feel compelled to do anything and certainly should never be used to champion a cause such as completely subjective self reported socially shamed eating behaviors as if they are in fact pathological. The pathology was and is the social pressures against a behavior that ultimately frees you of pathology. This ties in quite nicely with my above comment.

 

[Dydo]

Let me guess.. Netherlands ?

No.
Balkans, Eastern Europe.
But this is just a humorous article, even the author could be from any country and just attributed.
We don't have that many cyclists. Mainly people get around by car or public transport, although everywhere in most big cities they have built cycle lanes.

 

[Paul Tarini]

I think you run into trouble when you separate decision from context. There is a deep literature on the 'social' or 'structural' determinants of health. The existence of food deserts--large areas where there are no grocery stores which makes it hard to eat a healthy diet--is but one example. People can only choose or not choose from among the choices available to them. We could make societal-level choices to create general conditions that make it easier for more people to make healthy choices/live a healthy life. Pushing this up to an even higher level, you could argue that pollution--which is a choice--harms health and that if we were serious about health as a moral imperative we would seek to apply that to all government decisions and the decisions made by the private sector. All of which is a long way of suggesting that the original post is limited in that it frames moral decisions as an individual exercise only. Moral decisions are made by other actors as well.

 

[TedM]

I recently read a humorous article in my country that the most harmful people to society are cyclists. And this is because many of them live healthy lives, and this financially hits the manufacturers and sellers of cigarettes, alcohol and junk food. Apart from that, these people don't drive, and many of them, mainly the older ones, have already gotten rid of their cars. Which means these people don't pay car tax, don't pay for annual MOT, don't pay for auto parts and don't buy fuel. They don't pay for insurance, and they don't pay fines for violations. They do not pay the parking fee in the central part of the city. They do not have to use medical services. And this thing is estimated at tens of millions of losses for society

Sounds like the deceased are really having the most negative impact. They aren't buying bicycles, for example.

 

[TedM]

every unhealthy decision is an immoral one.

I basically agree with you, but I have trouble with the word immoral, or moral.

I look at it more, that we have an imperative to protect our health, and unhealthy decisions violate that imperative.

Doubtful that i've added anything meaningful here....

 

[mprevost]

Thanks everybody. I have read every one of your responses and appreciate the feedback. Just a thought exercise