tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1279973426476621559.post8957658584942035788..comments2023-04-03T05:20:01.318-04:00Comments on Young, Hip and Conservative: a skeptical blog: Food police and technology standardsMichaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00427964335321253510noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1279973426476621559.post-53611490415535156422011-08-14T13:47:00.970-04:002011-08-14T13:47:00.970-04:00It is not difficult to make an argument in favor o...It is not difficult to make an argument in favor of the immorality associated with obesity. <a href="http://forthesakeofscience.com/2010/01/25/obesity/" rel="nofollow">I did it last year</a>. If being human (or having consciousness) is something we value highly, and if human life ought to be protected, then it follows that mistreating one's own body has something wrong with it. I have no doubt that becoming willingly unhealthy is a clear mistreatment. <br /><br />And other arguments can be made as well. An obese population is far less economically effective than a fit one in many ways, whether it's from increased sick days or overuse of health care policies. To use a Kantian hypothetical imperative, if we want our economy to do well, it would behoove us to find a way to discourage obesity. <br /><br />And yet another argument, the banning of children from eating shit food at school derives itself from the democratic process. If most people are standing up and saying, "Look, part of public education involves feeding kids. Why should I pay for my kid to get fed crap? Devote my taxes to more nutritious meals", then I see no problem. In fact, I'm hard pressed to even imagine how anyone else can find a problem with this.<br /><br />And finally, as if three top-of-the-head, so-easy-to-make arguments weren't enough, healthy people tend to be happier than unhealthy people. The happiness itself is an abstract concept, but it most certainly has very real effects. Unlike "liberty", it is not permanently confined to its abstraction. People feel it and know it and want it and need it. Besides, despite the poor philosophies of so many modern libertarians*, it is not liberty itself which is good. Liberty is meant as a conduit to happiness; it is that human happiness which is good.<br /><br />*I am speaking generally.Michael Hawkinshttp://forthesakeofscience.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1279973426476621559.post-35581659396674931702011-08-13T11:56:59.287-04:002011-08-13T11:56:59.287-04:00Mark, you're absolutely right. See the edit I ...Mark, you're absolutely right. See the edit I made.Michaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00427964335321253510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1279973426476621559.post-79180851382067173072011-08-13T10:21:01.355-04:002011-08-13T10:21:01.355-04:00I find this essay equivocal. You claim improving t...I find this essay equivocal. You claim improving the health of the public is "a noble goal" and you ask if perhaps we should just "enforce that the goal be met". Noble goal for whom? Enforce how? And more importantly, by what right? <br /><br />I'm sure you're just being deliberately vague, but your laser focus on "results" cedes the larger argument. OK, says your opponent, you're right, soda bans don't reduce obesity. But here's my new statist program which will DEFINITELY work, and you have no evidence against it...Mark Lindholmnoreply@blogger.com