[lit-ideas] Re: Food for thought
- From: "Walter C. Okshevsky" <wokshevs@xxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, John McCreery <john.mccreery@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2009 21:32:59 -0230
The maxim would have to be properly formulated before we could meaningfully
test
for universalizability. If all non-obese, non-diabetic persons were to eat
these burgerdonuts in moderation, the maxim would appear to be universalizable
and hence permissible. If all obese and/or diabetic persons were to eat them
beyond what prudence and temperance would prescribe, there would eventually be
no obese and/or diabetic persons around to eat them. Self-contradictory maxims
are not universalizable. Hence, this class of persons has an obligation not to
indulge to such an extent.
Of course, from a Darwinian perspective, the gene pool would be much better off
without such persons and so from that perspective, that class of persons
"should" eat them to their heart's content. (This reasoning seems somewhat akin
to the Romans' claim that slaves were not fully human since they would rather
live as slaves than commit suicide. Only less than fully humans would make such
a choice. Hence, the conclusion follows inexorably.)
A more general ethical and political question this issue raises is whether the
liberal state has a right (obligation?) to prevent people from knowingly
inflicting harm upon themselves. Is negative freedom really all that a liberal
state should be guided by in legislating law? Or is the establishment and
enforcement of conditions required for a virtuous, healthy and prosperous life
also within the legitimate mandate of the state? When, for example, is the state
justified in implementing coercive restraint upon the addicted gambler, the
alcoholic, the inveterate donutburger consumer, the obese, the medically
noncompliant diabetic, the fundamentalist parent who refuses to grant
permission for her son's participation in classes on permissive sex education
that contradict religious precepts, the addicted smoker, etc.. At what point is
the state's obligation to ensure the common good trumped by the individual's
rights over her own mind and body? Or is it that none of us ultimately possess
full ownership rights over our own lives?
Walter O
MUN
Quoting John McCreery <john.mccreery@xxxxxxxxx>:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjaNYbPEydw
>
> Would eating these be immoral? What do our ethics professors say?
>
> John
> --
> John McCreery
> The Word Works, Ltd., Yokohama, JAPAN
> Tel. +81-45-314-9324
> jlm@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://www.wordworks.jp/
>
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
