I find I generally agree with the idea that one's size and eating habits are their own business and not anyone else's.
I'd be interested to know, though, (and if you feel like devoting more thought and typing to the question) where your thoughts are about the following example: My question really is "where does the morality of the individual end and the morality of the society begin?"
Around here (as in many other cities) an effort is being made to bring farmer's markets and other healthier food options into poorer areas that are lacking in quality grocery stores. I'm not sure exactly who funds these efforts--community groups? Churches/religious organizations? The Government? But it's being done in recognition of the fact that it's hard for people who don't have cars or a lot of money to make healthy choices about what they eat if it isn't available to them at, say, the corner convenience store.
I personally think this is a Good Thing--people deserve more choices about what to eat. However, it could be interpreted as a group of outsiders (mostly) telling a particular group of people that what they're doing (feeding them selves from what they have available) is Wrong, and needs to be Corrected.
So, in this case, I'd say that any one of those poorer individuals who is fat or skinny or whatever has the right to be that way IF that's what THEY WANT. But at the same time, I think a civilized society has a duty to try to make resources available to all of its members. But where is the line between the two?
Also, to take it even farther: I believe there are people who truly don't know that their eating habits contribute to their health problems (whether they are related to weight--joint trouble, poor circulation, etc..; diabetes, heart, cholesterol, etc...) Some of these people may be poor or undereducated (or, in fact, have difficulty learning). Some may not--maybe they're just oblivious. Children certainly don't know this without being taught. So where does the moral obligation of society to educate them end and their right as individuals to do as they want begin?
I'm really not trying to pick holes in anything you've said--I'm honestly curious about your thoughts, because I don't necessarily have a coherent answer for the questions.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2010-04-19 04:33 pm (UTC)I'd be interested to know, though, (and if you feel like devoting more thought and typing to the question) where your thoughts are about the following example: My question really is "where does the morality of the individual end and the morality of the society begin?"
Around here (as in many other cities) an effort is being made to bring farmer's markets and other healthier food options into poorer areas that are lacking in quality grocery stores. I'm not sure exactly who funds these efforts--community groups? Churches/religious organizations? The Government? But it's being done in recognition of the fact that it's hard for people who don't have cars or a lot of money to make healthy choices about what they eat if it isn't available to them at, say, the corner convenience store.
I personally think this is a Good Thing--people deserve more choices about what to eat. However, it could be interpreted as a group of outsiders (mostly) telling a particular group of people that what they're doing (feeding them selves from what they have available) is Wrong, and needs to be Corrected.
So, in this case, I'd say that any one of those poorer individuals who is fat or skinny or whatever has the right to be that way IF that's what THEY WANT. But at the same time, I think a civilized society has a duty to try to make resources available to all of its members. But where is the line between the two?
Also, to take it even farther: I believe there are people who truly don't know that their eating habits contribute to their health problems (whether they are related to weight--joint trouble, poor circulation, etc..; diabetes, heart, cholesterol, etc...) Some of these people may be poor or undereducated (or, in fact, have difficulty learning). Some may not--maybe they're just oblivious. Children certainly don't know this without being taught. So where does the moral obligation of society to educate them end and their right as individuals to do as they want begin?
I'm really not trying to pick holes in anything you've said--I'm honestly curious about your thoughts, because I don't necessarily have a coherent answer for the questions.