HarryBergers
Level 5 Valued Member
I think I prefer the description of whatever this actually is as "biopower"+"spectacle" because it is always true, everywhere. The perks for participation vary, however.
Health and fitness as a moral decision
- Thread starter mprevost
- Start date
watchnerd
Level 8 Valued Member
Attributed to a man far less known for his health than his hedonism.
Last edited:
Xcal
Level 5 Valued Member
very interesting OP, and I will make the time to read through it.
Followers of Islam have told me that the concept of Halaal (acceptable) and Haraam (unacceptable) are similar to your description. anything bad for your body, society,etc is Haraam. The particular discussion we had was around obesity and the prevailing view in the room was that being obese is Haraam and the obese person has a religious duty to get their body back in shape. We agreed that it was Haraam because a) we should not abuse our God-given bodies (I call it the Universe and/or God), and b) overeating means that someone else is probably going hungry, c) the great thing to do for that hypothetical obese person was to donate half his plate of food to the needy at every meal.
I'm not Muslim. I do believe in gray areas in-between acceptable and unacceptable
we are fallible humans, hypocrisy is a state of being, specifically every parent tells their kids: do what I say, not what I do We simply do our best to be good and do good.
Followers of Islam have told me that the concept of Halaal (acceptable) and Haraam (unacceptable) are similar to your description. anything bad for your body, society,etc is Haraam. The particular discussion we had was around obesity and the prevailing view in the room was that being obese is Haraam and the obese person has a religious duty to get their body back in shape. We agreed that it was Haraam because a) we should not abuse our God-given bodies (I call it the Universe and/or God), and b) overeating means that someone else is probably going hungry, c) the great thing to do for that hypothetical obese person was to donate half his plate of food to the needy at every meal.
I'm not Muslim. I do believe in gray areas in-between acceptable and unacceptable
we are fallible humans, hypocrisy is a state of being, specifically every parent tells their kids: do what I say, not what I do We simply do our best to be good and do good.
Pantrolyx
Level 6 Valued Member
First of all, the degree of which this is an individual choice is highly overestimated.
Like Jack London described more than 100 years ago (in "People of the abyss", based upon his own field research in East London): Being born by parents unable to provide sufficient food and the table, losing ones teeth before the age of 11 and working 16 hours a day from an early age without making ends meet is neither the results of bad individual choices or lazy personalities, but of being heavliy controlled by factors outside your own control. We do not always choose whether we live healthy lives.
Many of us do however live in privileged times and societies, where we can actually choose a healthy and active lifestyle.
Even so, it is not so clear whether this equals superiority in a utilitarian sense. As many have pointed out, living longer lives tend to cost the society a whole lot more. I hate smoking, but find calculations of what smoking/drinking costs society completely retarded unless they include some comparision to alternative costs. Most of us (especially in welfare states with high public costs) will end up as heavy burdens upon the tax payers late in life. Followingly, living as long as possible may not be the most morally correct choice in that regard.
I would also argue that good health is also a lot more complex than pure physiology.
For instance, drinking alcohol may have a lot of negative impact on both individuals and society. But not drinking alcohol may also correlate with less happiness and lower degree of social success among young adults. Forcing fat and lazy to be more Physically active may not be a straightforward good thing for their health, I suspect.
Like Jack London described more than 100 years ago (in "People of the abyss", based upon his own field research in East London): Being born by parents unable to provide sufficient food and the table, losing ones teeth before the age of 11 and working 16 hours a day from an early age without making ends meet is neither the results of bad individual choices or lazy personalities, but of being heavliy controlled by factors outside your own control. We do not always choose whether we live healthy lives.
Many of us do however live in privileged times and societies, where we can actually choose a healthy and active lifestyle.
Even so, it is not so clear whether this equals superiority in a utilitarian sense. As many have pointed out, living longer lives tend to cost the society a whole lot more. I hate smoking, but find calculations of what smoking/drinking costs society completely retarded unless they include some comparision to alternative costs. Most of us (especially in welfare states with high public costs) will end up as heavy burdens upon the tax payers late in life. Followingly, living as long as possible may not be the most morally correct choice in that regard.
I would also argue that good health is also a lot more complex than pure physiology.
For instance, drinking alcohol may have a lot of negative impact on both individuals and society. But not drinking alcohol may also correlate with less happiness and lower degree of social success among young adults. Forcing fat and lazy to be more Physically active may not be a straightforward good thing for their health, I suspect.
Steve W.
Level 8 Valued Member
The idea of attaching a moral value to fitness and health just strikes me as distasteful and problematic on a lot of levels, many of which have been explored already on this thread. Even if you start from a place of personal morality in the context of your own behavior, I think there's an almost irresistible tendency toward making negative moral judgments of others for making different choices (for whatever reasons, most of which you would have no idea about), and for arriving at different outcomes. And then those negative moral judgments can potentially lead to punitive or coercive treatment.
Many choices and circumstances in life (for ALL people) are significantly, largely, or completely dependent on luck and factors beyond their control, so we should have empathy and sympathy for others, and respect their dignity and autonomy as fellow humans, rather than leap to saddle them with moral baggage.
So my perspective on this issue is less in the context of a personal or societal problem that needs to be fixed or question that needs to be answered, and more as area where applying a moral lens not only doesn't fit, but deeply problematic. It puts me in mind of a poem by William Blake:
"What is the price of Experience? do men buy it for a song?
Or wisdom for a dance in the street? No, it is bought with the price
Of all that a man hath, his house, his wife, his children.
Wisdom is sold in the desolate market where none come to buy,
And in the wither'd field where the farmer plows for bread in vain.
It is an easy thing to triumph in the summer's sun
And in the vintage and to sing on the waggon loaded with corn.
It is an easy thing to talk of patience to the afflicted,
To speak the laws of prudence to the houseless wanderer,
To listen to the hungry raven's cry in wintry season
When the red blood is fill'd with wine and with the marrow of lambs.
It is an easy thing to laugh at wrathful elements,
To hear the dog howl at the wintry door, the ox in the slaughter house moan;
To see a god on every wind and a blessing on every blast;
To hear sounds of love in the thunder storm that destroys our enemies' house;
To rejoice in the blight that covers his field, and the sickness that cuts off his children,
While our olive and vine sing and laugh round our door, and our children bring fruits and flowers.
Then the groan and the dolor are quite forgotten, and the slave grinding at the mill,
And the captive in chains, and the poor in the prison, and the soldier in the field
When the shatter'd bone hath laid him groaning among the happier dead.
It is an easy thing to rejoice in the tents of prosperity:
Thus could I sing and thus rejoice: but it is not so with me."
"Compel the poor to live upon a crust of bread, by soft mild arts.
Smile when they frown, frown when they smile; and when a man looks pale
With labour and abstinence, say he looks healthy and happy;
And when his children sicken, let them die; there are enough
Born, even too many, and our earth will be overrun
Without these arts. If you would make the poor live with temper,
With pomp give every crust of bread you give; with gracious cunning
Magnify small gifts; reduce the man to want a gift, and then give with pomp.
Say he smiles if you hear him sigh. If pale, say he is ruddy.
Preach temperance: say he is overgorg'd and drowns his wit
In strong drink, though you know that bread and water are all
He can afford. Flatter his wife, pity his children, till we can
Reduce all to our will, as spaniels are taught with art."
--William Blake
Many choices and circumstances in life (for ALL people) are significantly, largely, or completely dependent on luck and factors beyond their control, so we should have empathy and sympathy for others, and respect their dignity and autonomy as fellow humans, rather than leap to saddle them with moral baggage.
So my perspective on this issue is less in the context of a personal or societal problem that needs to be fixed or question that needs to be answered, and more as area where applying a moral lens not only doesn't fit, but deeply problematic. It puts me in mind of a poem by William Blake:
"What is the price of Experience? do men buy it for a song?
Or wisdom for a dance in the street? No, it is bought with the price
Of all that a man hath, his house, his wife, his children.
Wisdom is sold in the desolate market where none come to buy,
And in the wither'd field where the farmer plows for bread in vain.
It is an easy thing to triumph in the summer's sun
And in the vintage and to sing on the waggon loaded with corn.
It is an easy thing to talk of patience to the afflicted,
To speak the laws of prudence to the houseless wanderer,
To listen to the hungry raven's cry in wintry season
When the red blood is fill'd with wine and with the marrow of lambs.
It is an easy thing to laugh at wrathful elements,
To hear the dog howl at the wintry door, the ox in the slaughter house moan;
To see a god on every wind and a blessing on every blast;
To hear sounds of love in the thunder storm that destroys our enemies' house;
To rejoice in the blight that covers his field, and the sickness that cuts off his children,
While our olive and vine sing and laugh round our door, and our children bring fruits and flowers.
Then the groan and the dolor are quite forgotten, and the slave grinding at the mill,
And the captive in chains, and the poor in the prison, and the soldier in the field
When the shatter'd bone hath laid him groaning among the happier dead.
It is an easy thing to rejoice in the tents of prosperity:
Thus could I sing and thus rejoice: but it is not so with me."
"Compel the poor to live upon a crust of bread, by soft mild arts.
Smile when they frown, frown when they smile; and when a man looks pale
With labour and abstinence, say he looks healthy and happy;
And when his children sicken, let them die; there are enough
Born, even too many, and our earth will be overrun
Without these arts. If you would make the poor live with temper,
With pomp give every crust of bread you give; with gracious cunning
Magnify small gifts; reduce the man to want a gift, and then give with pomp.
Say he smiles if you hear him sigh. If pale, say he is ruddy.
Preach temperance: say he is overgorg'd and drowns his wit
In strong drink, though you know that bread and water are all
He can afford. Flatter his wife, pity his children, till we can
Reduce all to our will, as spaniels are taught with art."
--William Blake
watchnerd
Level 8 Valued Member
very interesting OP, and I will make the time to read through it.
Followers of Islam have told me that the concept of Halaal (acceptable) and Haraam (unacceptable) are similar to your description. anything bad for your body, society,etc is Haraam. The particular discussion we had was around obesity and the prevailing view in the room was that being obese is Haraam and the obese person has a religious duty to get their body back in shape. We agreed that it was Haraam because a) we should not abuse our God-given bodies (I call it the Universe and/or God), and b) overeating means that someone else is probably going hungry, c) the great thing to do for that hypothetical obese person was to donate half his plate of food to the needy at every meal.
I'm not Muslim. I do believe in gray areas in-between acceptable and unacceptable
The challenge with religious motivations for health is that they don't enforce compliance outside of that religion.
e.g. I might acknowledge an understanding of Islamic views on health, but as a non-Muslim I don't feel compelled to follow them for reasons of being a good Muslim.
That makes them unscalable beyond particular communities.
I don't think anyone here is suggesting enforced compliance - discussing the consequences of "what if" perhaps, but I think most of us would agree that this particular slope is more than a little slippery. Choosing to live in a community with strict behavioral policies would be a choice and therefore wouldn't constitute enforcement in a free society.
Having just offered my opinion for more than the first time in this thread, I am going to enforce <ahem> myself not participating further - I don't think discussions like this ever have an end, and that's a fine thing, but it can be an awkward thing here where all of our words are preserved for posterity.
-S-
watchnerd
Level 8 Valued Member
Well, to be effective, there has to be some way to improve compliance if one seeks a change in outcomes from the status quo.
Whether that's voluntarily belonging to a community with religious / moral rules that increase adherence.
Or market-based incentives that appeal to economic self-interest.
rwleonard
Level 7 Valued Member
You keep bringing up hedonism, almost as if it were a bad thing.
Steve W.
Level 8 Valued Member
There's a scene in the movie Trading Places where Denholm Elliott, disguised as a Catholic priest, pulls out a hip flask and offers a drink to Eddie Murphy, disguised as an exchange student from Cameroon. Eddie Murphy declines, saying, "I do not drink. It is against my religion." To which Denholm Elliott replies, "I always say, religion's a fine thing -- taken in moderation," before taking a swig himself.
WatchNerd is at least a part-time hedonist.
watchnerd
Level 8 Valued Member
It requires a certain intimacy with multiple flavors and magnitudes of vice to be familiar with the price.
For example, spending a week in jail in Mexico...
Convenience is at odds with greatness.It requires a certain intimacy with multiple flavors and magnitudes of vice to be familiar with the price.
For example, spending a week in jail in Mexico...
watchnerd
Level 8 Valued Member
The only thing convenient about that group cell was that they combined hosing down the floor and giving us a shower at the same time.
WN, that was my point. And terrible decisions can make for excellent stories.
silveraw
Level 8 Valued Member
History isn’t made by people who follow the rulesWN, that was my point. And terrible decisions can make for excellent stories.
-somebody
Convenience can also be at odds with robust health.
WxHerk
Level 8 Valued Member
The old saying “no great story starts with ‘there I was, eating a salad’…..”WN, that was my point. And terrible decisions can make for excellent stories.
" There I was, eating a salad of yayo, zanax, and Don Julio, at my favorite peeler bar."
Last edited:
I love your question, and I've been chewing on similar ideas for a time.
It seems to me that part of the reason you're even asking the question arises from our particularly western tendency to separate the mind and body into distinct domains. We also tend to elevate what we perceive to be the activities of the mind over the needs and "desires" of the body. Once we do this, ethics and morality move into the exclusive domain of the mind, while the body is shut out of participation in the "higher" activities. Hence, a morality/ethic grounded in the body becomes compromised and suspect.
And so, I wonder, like you, what a moral system rooted in the embodied and physical would look like, and what kinds of imperatives would it demand?
It seems to me that part of the reason you're even asking the question arises from our particularly western tendency to separate the mind and body into distinct domains. We also tend to elevate what we perceive to be the activities of the mind over the needs and "desires" of the body. Once we do this, ethics and morality move into the exclusive domain of the mind, while the body is shut out of participation in the "higher" activities. Hence, a morality/ethic grounded in the body becomes compromised and suspect.
And so, I wonder, like you, what a moral system rooted in the embodied and physical would look like, and what kinds of imperatives would it demand?