This Is Why I Don’t Do Moral Philosophy
An online version of the so called Trolley problem recently sparked discussion on one of the philosophy mailing lists. The discussion concerned the reference to a ‘very fat man’ in the description of the problem. The Trolley problem concerns moral philosophy, which I know very little about and have very little interest towards, but I was rather irritated by the angry replies from some parties that found the reference to a ‘fat man’ prejudiced. I’m not going to discuss this issue as such, but I’m concerned about a more general problem, which is evident in this recent article in the New York Times as well: ‘For Obese People, Prejudice in Plain Sight’. The position at issue here is that obese people are being discriminated against and that this is wrong. However, this position completely ignores the moral issues associated with obesity in the first place, and seems to me to be a sign of red herring argumentation that one sees all too often. Now, the author of the online version of the Trolley Problem has commented on the discussion here, and I decided to participate in the discussion. You can see my comment at that blog, but what follows is a summary of how I see the issue.
Firstly, let’s exclude cases where obesity is caused by factors that are clearly beyond the individual’s control, such as certain illnesses and perhaps psychological factors as well. We should also exclude those who have bigger bodies strictly due to genetic reasons. No doubt this still leaves a huge number of obese people who have chosen to ignore early warning signs and continue to eat in a manner that contributes to obesity. Ok, they may regret that now and it’s probably not helpful to make them feel guilty about it, but there are a number of straightforward utilitarian (and other moral) reasons to think that these people are doing something wrong.
Now, compare the situation to someone who chooses to smoke: this is something that is openly being discriminated against and not many people would be willing to argue that it’s not right to do so, because there are clear utilitarian (and other) reasons to think that smoking is bad. How is the limited case of obese people different? Smokers are addicted and may have little control over smoking, and it may not help to make them feel guilty (or maybe it does in both cases!). In any case, we choose to make smoking more difficult, we encourage people to stop it and we openly discuss the harms of smoking for both the smokers themselves and for people surrounding them. Why would we not be entitled to do the same in the case of unhealthy eating (not just if it leads to obesity!)? I see no reason to think that this is an unjustified prejudice.
There are of course subtle issues here about what is the best social and political approach to minimise the harms of obesity, and it is certainly not appropriate to insult obese people. However, the discussion should not lose sight of the fact that most obesity is by the choice of the obese individual and it comes with a great cost both to the individual in question as well as the society. Rather than focus on how not to insult or discriminate against obese people in any way, we should focus on reducing the number of obese people and the causes for obesity as best we can. In this regard it might very well be a good thing that there is a social stigma associated with obesity in a similar manner that there is with smoking — in regard to smoking this has proved to be effective. Not that I’m suggesting that the analogy goes all the way, this is of course a complex issue. Also, as a commentator pointed out at the Talking Philosophy blog, it may be impossible to tell whether obesity is due to issues beyond the individual’s control, or whether they are taking reasonable measures to change the situation.
I should mention that the worry here generalises even further: groups that are — at least by utilitarian and perhaps other grounds — doing something wrong, and then defending these activities by complaining about discrimination, seem to be doing something rather questionable: this is the red herring. Shouldn’t they rather be discussing the moral problems associated with these activities and how to alleviate the situation?
So, this is why I don’t do moral philosophy: the debates are often full of red herrings and there’s a constant risk of being accused of bigotry.
As per usual, discussion related to this post has taken place elsewhere: there is an on-going discussion at the Talking Philosophy blog (some of which is irrelevant though), and some more in-depth discussion on Facebook. Let me clarify a few issues that have come up in the discussion: I don’t claim to have done any research regarding obesity and I know the issues are much more complex than what I say above.
What is at issue here is that there are certain activities that are clearly harmful in the utilitarian (and other moral) sense, such as smoking, flying, driving SUVs, and eating copious amounts of unhealthy foods. I don’t think there’s any question about the fact that millions of people willingly engage in these activities.
What I am saying is that as long as the discrimination that we are talking about here is aimed at reducing the harms of these activities and succeeds in doing so, then it appears to be perfectly justifiable, and I am personally happy to submit to such discrimination. Naturally this should exclude taunting or any other rude methods, I’m thinking about more systematic and controlled forms of discrimination, such as taxation, which we already use in the case of smoking for instance (and sadly don’t use in the case of flying!).
However, I am primarily interested in the argumentation pattern at issue, which goes roughly as follows:
(1) Fat people are being discriminated against.
(2) Discrimination is always wrong.
(3) Therefore, people who discriminate against fat people are wrong/bad/immoral/racist/bigots
Or, as one commentator put it in the Talking Philosophy blog:
“However, from condemning media which manipulate us about our body shape to a defense of fatness, as positive trait, one that cannot be criticized, there is a long distance, and I see that defense in certain attacks on this blog.”
This is what I as well have seen around at least in the media and in comments by certain activists, and this is the position that I found alarming and full of red herrings. When critical discussion of the potential problems concerning obesity (or something else) are being shunned because it is discriminatory, then we’re on a dangerous path.