Food and morality

Despite having been fat, I never viewed eating large amounts of food
as a sin or moral weakness, just not medically a good idea due to the
fact that it can cause obesity in some people when combined with our
current environment. However, I have noticed over the few years I have
participated in this newsgroup that there have been a few who seem to
view food as a "necessary evil" and don't even think we should enjoy
it in any amount.

So I want some other thoughts on this. If "getting fat" were removed
from the equation, would you have a moral problem with people who eat
6 plates of food at the Golden Corral? I wouldn't. Yes I know
"gluttony" is one of the 7 deadly sins but it became so because of the
observation that those who ate too much got fat. There is also the
argument that it's wrong for us to eat so much when people are
starving in Somalia but world hunger is more of a problem of
distribution. Despite what we eat in the US, what we waste could feed
the third world.

And yes, there is a practical reason to ask this question. Some
"naturally thin" people do "eat 6 plates at the buffet" on occasion or
pig out during the holidays but the system in their body that
regulates food intake and appetite compensate for this and they just
simply feel like eating less at other times so everything comes out in
the wash and they don't get fat but would you consider them
"gluttons"?

Anticipating another angle on this. Yes I am aware that there is some
evidence that over consumption of food shortens our life spans,
independent of obesity, due to increased oxidative stress and that we
may possibly add a few years to our lives by restricting our calories
but the jury's still out on that one. (the much debated 2 pound diet
would be a simple way of doing this if one wanted to go that route
even if not fat) But even there, are we morally obliged to try every
method possible to add years to our lives even if the possibility is
only a statistical one?

--
Ron Ritzman
http://www.panix.com/~ritzlart
Smart people can figure out my email address

Hi, Ron. My first post here, but I find your questions interesting. Food and
morality.

I have only ever linked them in terms of social issues before (eg,
distribution of resources), but from a personal point of view I can honestly
say that since I've been losing weight, I have truly started to enjoy food.
In fact that enjoyment has been an essential part of the process. I drink
less wine these days, but that means I can afford to spend more. Cutting
down on food intake, I realised that if I have an obligation at all, then it
is to the quality of my life and those around me. If people find
enjoyment/pleasure sunful, then fine, but I ain't going to make my life
miserable:-)

And yes, I do owe it to my daughter to stick around on this mortal coil for
as long as is feasable to do so, so any action I take that reduces my
chances of doing that are inherently against my personal moral code.

I also think it is possible to make moral choices about the food one eats
(in terms of production and distribution) and still enjoy quality.

Another issue for me was identifying that many overweight people (including
myself) actually dissociate from the sensations involved in eating. Truly
enjoying the physical sensation of eating actually put some of the natural
feedback mechanisms back into action.

It's a pursuit of quality in all aspects of my life, and in the lives of
those affected by my actions.

Adam
--
www.trance-formation.co.uk
Personal growth, change and health through NLP and trance work

"Ron Ritzman" wrote in message
...
Despite having been fat, I never viewed eating large amounts of food
as a sin or moral weakness, just not medically a good idea due to the
fact that it can cause obesity in some people when combined with our
current environment. However, I have noticed over the few years I have
participated in this newsgroup that there have been a few who seem to
view food as a "necessary evil" and don't even think we should enjoy
it in any amount.

So I want some other thoughts on this. If "getting fat" were removed
from the equation, would you have a moral problem with people who eat
6 plates of food at the Golden Corral? I wouldn't. Yes I know
"gluttony" is one of the 7 deadly sins but it became so because of the
observation that those who ate too much got fat. There is also the
argument that it's wrong for us to eat so much when people are
starving in Somalia but world hunger is more of a problem of
distribution. Despite what we eat in the US, what we waste could feed
the third world.

And yes, there is a practical reason to ask this question. Some
"naturally thin" people do "eat 6 plates at the buffet" on occasion or
pig out during the holidays but the system in their body that
regulates food intake and appetite compensate for this and they just
simply feel like eating less at other times so everything comes out in
the wash and they don't get fat but would you consider them
"gluttons"?

Anticipating another angle on this. Yes I am aware that there is some
evidence that over consumption of food shortens our life spans,
independent of obesity, due to increased oxidative stress and that we
may possibly add a few years to our lives by restricting our calories
but the jury's still out on that one. (the much debated 2 pound diet
would be a simple way of doing this if one wanted to go that route
even if not fat) But even there, are we morally obliged to try every
method possible to add years to our lives even if the possibility is
only a statistical one?

--
Ron Ritzman
http://www.panix.com/~ritzlart
Smart people can figure out my email address


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free for your edification :-)
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.528 / Virus Database: 324 - Release Date: 16/10/2003

i hope your not referring to me ron....................i for one don't
put a "moral" label on overeating, OR undereating.


--
read and post daily, it works!
rosie

http://www.theolympian.com/home/news...e/121390.shtml



"Ron Ritzman" wrote in message
...
Despite having been fat, I never viewed eating large amounts of food
as a sin or moral weakness, just not medically a good idea due to the
fact that it can cause obesity in some people when combined with our
current environment. However, I have noticed over the few years I have
participated in this newsgroup that there have been a few who seem to
view food as a "necessary evil" and don't even think we should enjoy
it in any amount.

So I want some other thoughts on this. If "getting fat" were removed
from the equation, would you have a moral problem with people who eat
6 plates of food at the Golden Corral? I wouldn't. Yes I know
"gluttony" is one of the 7 deadly sins but it became so because of the
observation that those who ate too much got fat. There is also the
argument that it's wrong for us to eat so much when people are
starving in Somalia but world hunger is more of a problem of
distribution. Despite what we eat in the US, what we waste could feed
the third world.

And yes, there is a practical reason to ask this question. Some
"naturally thin" people do "eat 6 plates at the buffet" on occasion or
pig out during the holidays but the system in their body that
regulates food intake and appetite compensate for this and they just
simply feel like eating less at other times so everything comes out in
the wash and they don't get fat but would you consider them
"gluttons"?

Anticipating another angle on this. Yes I am aware that there is some
evidence that over consumption of food shortens our life spans,
independent of obesity, due to increased oxidative stress and that we
may possibly add a few years to our lives by restricting our calories
but the jury's still out on that one. (the much debated 2 pound diet
would be a simple way of doing this if one wanted to go that route
even if not fat) But even there, are we morally obliged to try every
method possible to add years to our lives even if the possibility is
only a statistical one?

--
Ron Ritzman
http://www.panix.com/~ritzlart
Smart people can figure out my email address

Ron,

I have low tolerance for smokers and for people eating unhealthy food.
I have an urge to scold people eating Big Macs and fried chicken, or
downing sugary sodas. Smokers and folks eating unhealthy foods are
part of the reason health insurance costs are going thro the roof.
Generally, tho, it's a myth that obese people eat more calories. The
biggest eaters of all are the athletes in endurance sports - runners,
basketball players, etc. Generally people gain weight gradually -
month after month consuming a little more calories than they burn up.
You don't suddenly wake up and find you weight 300 lbs.


Ron Ritzman wrote in message . ..
Despite having been fat, I never viewed eating large amounts of food
as a sin or moral weakness, just not medically a good idea due to the
fact that it can cause obesity in some people when combined with our
current environment. However, I have noticed over the few years I have
participated in this newsgroup that there have been a few who seem to
view food as a "necessary evil" and don't even think we should enjoy
it in any amount.

So I want some other thoughts on this. If "getting fat" were removed
from the equation, would you have a moral problem with people who eat
6 plates of food at the Golden Corral? I wouldn't. Yes I know
"gluttony" is one of the 7 deadly sins but it became so because of the
observation that those who ate too much got fat. There is also the
argument that it's wrong for us to eat so much when people are
starving in Somalia but world hunger is more of a problem of
distribution. Despite what we eat in the US, what we waste could feed
the third world.

And yes, there is a practical reason to ask this question. Some
"naturally thin" people do "eat 6 plates at the buffet" on occasion or
pig out during the holidays but the system in their body that
regulates food intake and appetite compensate for this and they just
simply feel like eating less at other times so everything comes out in
the wash and they don't get fat but would you consider them
"gluttons"?

Anticipating another angle on this. Yes I am aware that there is some
evidence that over consumption of food shortens our life spans,
independent of obesity, due to increased oxidative stress and that we
may possibly add a few years to our lives by restricting our calories
but the jury's still out on that one. (the much debated 2 pound diet
would be a simple way of doing this if one wanted to go that route
even if not fat) But even there, are we morally obliged to try every
method possible to add years to our lives even if the possibility is
only a statistical one?

"Brad Sheppard" wrote in message
om...
Ron,

I have low tolerance for smokers and for people eating unhealthy food.
I have an urge to scold people eating Big Macs and fried chicken, or
downing sugary sodas. Smokers and folks eating unhealthy foods are
part of the reason health insurance costs are going thro the roof.
Generally, tho, it's a myth that obese people eat more calories. The
biggest eaters of all are the athletes in endurance sports - runners,
basketball players, etc. Generally people gain weight gradually -
month after month consuming a little more calories than they burn up.
You don't suddenly wake up and find you weight 300 lbs.

I don't want to scold anybody with those bad habits. After all, I have bad
habits of my own. We have no way of knowing what others are going through.
Many smokers are clean & sober and if smoking keeps them off drugs or
alcohol, more power to 'em. Lots of obese folks are abuse survivors. They
use their fat to shield them from further hurt.

If we work on ourselves instead of worrying about everybody else, we can be
good examples for others to follow.

Martha

On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 12:49:19 -0400, Ron Ritzman
wrote:
So I want some other thoughts on this. If "getting fat" were removed
from the equation, would you have a moral problem with people who eat
6 plates of food at the Golden Corral? I wouldn't.

Nor would I. There are only two moral issues I see involved he
(1) Sticking to one's own commitment; and Society having to foot the
bill for medical care for the poor resulting from preventable obesity.

Yes I know "gluttony" is one of the 7 deadly sins

Only for folks who subscribe to the faiths that believe that.

There is also the
argument that it's wrong for us to eat so much when people are
starving in Somalia but world hunger is more of a problem of
distribution.

Precisely.

Anticipating another angle on this. Yes I am aware that there is some
evidence that over consumption of food shortens our life spans,
independent of obesity, due to increased oxidative stress and that we
may possibly add a few years to our lives by restricting our calories
but the jury's still out on that one.

I don't think so. I think that's pretty-well as close to proven as it
could get at this point. However, there isn't a moral issue, unless
society is required to foot the medical bills.


--
¤bicker¤
"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than
to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring."
- Carl Sagan

People are, of course, welcome to place whatever irrelevant
limitations on their ability to enjoy something that they wish.

On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 07:08:52 -0400, bicker 2003 1NVAL1D wrote:

I don't think so. I think that's pretty-well as close to proven as it
could get at this point. However, there isn't a moral issue, unless
society is required to foot the medical bills.

I would almost tend to agree, particularly when it comes to smokers,
but there is a slippery slope issue here.

If we were to say that it's immoral to "do dangerous things" less
society be forced to "foot the medical bill" and even in some future
semi-socialist society, find some way of legislating it. It could get
to the point where citizens are mandated to live "approved safe
lifestyles". Not only "no smoking, no drinking" but "no red meat, no
sat fat, no trans fat, food calorie (or weight) rationing, no
dangerous sports or activities, no cell phones (they cause brain
cancer you know) etc. And of course the mandated lifestyle will change
every time some new studies come out suggesting something is
dangerous.

So someone might go to the hospital with a heart attack. He's treated
but then he's arrested by the "lifestyle police" because it's
determined that he ate 500 more calories per day then what was
mandated for his weight and the excess free radical damage lead to his
heart attack. Oops, that nosy neighbor saw those midnight pizza
deliveries and ratted him out, sucks to be him.

Yes it would make a good plot for a movie but it demonstrates that
life is becoming very complicated, There is just too much to worry
about. At one time you just tried to live the best life you could and
trusted that God (or whoever) would take care of you and when it was
your time to go you went. But then the doctors started giving you more
things to worry about. First it was weight, then blood pressure, then
cholesterol, then sat fat, "triglycerides" because the rage in the 80s
and trans fats in the 90s.

If you ask me, I think it's the excess cortisol produced from worrying
about all this that's killing us *tongue in cheek*

--
Ron Ritzman
http://www.panix.com/~ritzlart
Smart people can figure out my email address

On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 12:49:19 -0400, Ron Ritzman
wrote:

However, I have noticed over the few years I have
participated in this newsgroup that there have been a few who seem to
view food as a "necessary evil" and don't even think we should enjoy
it in any amount.

Enjoyment is one thing; however, way too many times this "enjoyment"
is actually gluttony in a pretty name.

So I want some other thoughts on this. If "getting fat" were removed
from the equation, would you have a moral problem with people who eat
6 plates of food at the Golden Corral? I wouldn't.

Gluttony is not only determined by weight gain.

Yes I know
"gluttony" is one of the 7 deadly sins but it became so because of the
observation that those who ate too much got fat.

I would disagree. Gluttony, as laid out in the old Testament, is about
eating more than your fair share. It is tied hand-in-hand with waste.

There is also the
argument that it's wrong for us to eat so much when people are
starving in Somalia but world hunger is more of a problem of
distribution.

It is a problem of politics and power first of all.

And yes, there is a practical reason to ask this question. Some
"naturally thin" people do "eat 6 plates at the buffet" on occasion or
pig out during the holidays but the system in their body that
regulates food intake and appetite compensate for this and they just
simply feel like eating less at other times so everything comes out in
the wash and they don't get fat but would you consider them
"gluttons"?

I would consider gluttony to be a sin of regular commission.

Anticipating another angle on this. Yes I am aware that there is some
evidence that over consumption of food shortens our life spans,
independent of obesity, due to increased oxidative stress and that we
may possibly add a few years to our lives by restricting our calories
but the jury's still out on that one. (the much debated 2 pound diet
would be a simple way of doing this if one wanted to go that route
even if not fat) But even there, are we morally obliged to try every
method possible to add years to our lives even if the possibility is
only a statistical one?

Yes. God placed us, each of us, here for many reasons. It is our duty
to stick around for as long as we can and to take care of the body
that God gave us.

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap031011.html
Lift well, Eat less, Walk fast, Live long.

In article , M_un Over
Seattle wrote:

observation that those who ate too much got fat.

I would disagree. Gluttony, as laid out in the old Testament, is about
eating more than your fair share. It is tied hand-in-hand with waste.

How about in the Communist Manifesto?


--
Diva
*****
The Best Man for the Job May Be A Woman

On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 12:35:33 -0400, Carol Frilegh
wrote:

I would disagree. Gluttony, as laid out in the Old Testament, is about
eating more than your fair share. It is tied hand-in-hand with waste.

How about in the Communist Manifesto?

Doesn't address gluttony.

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap031011.html
Lift well, Eat less, Walk fast, Live long.