watchnerd
Level 8 Valued Member
It could be a good force.
But it could also be vanity, or some other less benevolent force.
Health and fitness as a moral decision
- Thread starter mprevost
- Start date
It could be a good force.
But it could also be vanity, or some other less benevolent force.
George Vrotsos
Level 7 Valued Member
I'm not a fan of attaching morality to fitness but that topic has been covered plenty in this thread.
I would be a fan of attaching some kind of incentive to health and fitness. No, I don't know what an effective incentive would be. That is something a HEALTHcare system would do if health was the priority. Unfortunately we (in the US, IDK if it's different elsewhere) only have a SICKcare system. Poor daily lifestyle choices are pushed 24/7. Big food. alcohol, tobacco, and tech/social media companies profit off the poor lifestyle choices. Big pharma profits off treating the symptoms of the diseases a life time of poor daily lifestyle choices create. Doctors rarely consider nutrition as medicine. Do that for 40-50 years and Diabetes/Cancer/Heat Disease wins...oh wait, they are winning.
No I don't want gov't intervention to enforce lifestyle choices. And I'm not anti-capitalism. But if something doesn't change, we've got another half century or so until we eat/drink/binge-watch our way into a real life Idiocracy.
I would be a fan of attaching some kind of incentive to health and fitness. No, I don't know what an effective incentive would be. That is something a HEALTHcare system would do if health was the priority. Unfortunately we (in the US, IDK if it's different elsewhere) only have a SICKcare system. Poor daily lifestyle choices are pushed 24/7. Big food. alcohol, tobacco, and tech/social media companies profit off the poor lifestyle choices. Big pharma profits off treating the symptoms of the diseases a life time of poor daily lifestyle choices create. Doctors rarely consider nutrition as medicine. Do that for 40-50 years and Diabetes/Cancer/Heat Disease wins...oh wait, they are winning.
No I don't want gov't intervention to enforce lifestyle choices. And I'm not anti-capitalism. But if something doesn't change, we've got another half century or so until we eat/drink/binge-watch our way into a real life Idiocracy.
North Coast Miller
Level 9 Valued Member
All the big money says things are working perfectly. Nothing will be done to subsidize nutrition over cash crops, reduce our bodies manufactured environmental burden, or to simply promote activity and athleticism as a natural (if not essential) human birthright. Maybe I'm getting this wrong, but the entire man made environment (social, political, marketplace) seems intended to condition us toward avoidance of anything that might be unpleasant to face. There's no money in it.
I believe we are there...
George Vrotsos
Level 7 Valued Member
That pretty much sums up the book Comfort Crisis. Great read.
bluejeff
Level 7 Valued Member
Beat me to it haha
silveraw
Level 9 Valued Member
To be fair now, legality isn’t the same thing as morality.
Plenty of people do immoral but legal things. And more than a few people do moral but illegal things. There is a famous kitchen that sets up food depots at homeless camps and usually don’t take it down until arrested for not having permits or public disturbance. Or Nelson Mandela, Eugene V Debbs, MLK, more recently the “guerella public works” folks.
This thread sometimes reads as though words like "moral" or "morality" are defined as a code of ethics vs a set of principles. Both shape outward behavior, the net impact of which can be perceived as moral or not, given the standards of the individuals/groups assessing the situation. Morals are principles tied to a series of ethical assumptions that suggest an intrinsic value judgement of right or wrong (up for debate on what those things are), whereas principles as a broader concept can essentially be amoral, that is ambivalent or silent on is/ought.
To @watchnerd 's point (as I took it), there's space for the sociopath and highly morally conscious individual. Little-to-no commonality in motivation, but net output as expressed in society is the same.
To @watchnerd 's point (as I took it), there's space for the sociopath and highly morally conscious individual. Little-to-no commonality in motivation, but net output as expressed in society is the same.
Eric Stone
Level 2 Valued Member
I agree; I just prefer to use less Christian jargon!
What this means practically for me is that sometimes the moral thing to do is exercise when I don't feel like it, and sometimes it's to sacrifice my preference and invest time in my kid, my dog, my wife... (order not intentional!)
WxHerk
Level 8 Valued Member
@Don Fairbanks put me onto that book. The only book (of a thousand plus) I’ve ever finished then immediately restarted and finished again. An outstanding read!!
Singlecoilquack
Level 3 Valued Member
I disagree, or at least have a different take on your point. The process of establishing legality, legislation, is the imposition of morality. It's a question of whose morals are being imposed.
watchnerd
Level 8 Valued Member
Yep, that was my point.
If the objective is to reduce tragedy of the commons of shared healthcare costs, do I care if someone if someone is more fit for altruistic reasons or selfish reasons?
As long as they're reducing shared healthcare burden, I'm agnostic if they're doing it because they're a vainglorious douchebag who is also very fit.
rwleonard
Level 7 Valued Member
I really liked the "pack 1,800 calories per day a show up chubby" thing.
watchnerd
Level 8 Valued Member
what does this mean?
rwleonard
Level 7 Valued Member
The author was prepping for his first month-long, cold-weather, backcountry hunt. He read that he would be expending 4,000 - 6,000 calories per day. He told the experienced friend who was taking him on the hunt that he didn't think he could pack and carry that much food. The friend replied something close to, "No, you can't. So pack 1,800 calories per day and show up chubby."