posted
Lets examine, as an expample, weight loss in American culture. Some say that the reason American's are overweight is that they suffer from the deadly since of sloth and gluttony. In other words they are lazy and enjoy eating to much.
You yell this at an overwieght person and they shug guilty shoulders and vow to be better people. Then few changes occur.
However, if you examine many of their bad eating habits without condoning them, and look to see why they are observed, and what you get is not gluttony but thrift, not laziness but mental productivity, not sloth but honest work. Even the producers of our over caloried food system are not creating evil plots of greed and empowerment, but simply trying to provide value and feed the hungry.
I go into a restaurant to eat. I choose the big-sized mega-meal not because I am a glutton, or even because I am hungry. However, I was raised to be thrifty and to save my pennies. The mega-meal offers the most food for the penny, so that is what I order.
I clean my plate for that same sense of value and thrifti-ness, as well as obediance to my parents.
The designers of the mega-meal did not pick the food based on greedy plots to inflate our waist lines. They picked the food to please their customers, to compete in the free market, and to offer value. When the customer asks for larger portions, they feel obliged by business virtues, to provide them.
The solution to the problem is easy. I need to realize that the vitues of thrift and obediance are second to the vitues of moderation and health. I need to not feel guilty about paying more for less food, or for leaving food on my plate. It is better to waste than to go to my waist.
However, when we scream about the gluttons out there I am not convinced to change.
Do I work out? No. Not because it is hard work, or boring, or suffering. I do not work out because I have other responsiblities, other duties, other virtues to uphold, like being productive. To spend money and time, hours a week, doing something that looks so much like play goes against my upright upbringing.
I spend my time in front of the computer when I should be moving. I nibble on food while I watch TV or read not because I am hungry, but because it resembles productive work--multi-tasking.
I will not change my attituded or my behavior if you call me lazy or gluttonous or even fat. However, if you show me how my virtues are out of priority, if you acknowledge how hard I am striving to be virtuous, only not doing so in the best manner, then I will be open to listening and changing.
This idea, of understanding the virtues of those you disagree with, so you can demonstrate where they are out of priority, is the best way to convince someone to change. It is the essense of discussion. If some one talks about wrong or sin then they are only looking to gather support from those who agree with them, to prove their position, not change the minds of their opponents.
Such tactics as the comparison of virtues are the only way to successfully evangelize.
Such tactics are what makes a Statesman different than a politician.
Such tactics are what I love about Hatrack.
And such tactics allow for some self-change, when it turns out that you, not the others, are the ones with their virtues not in a good priority.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
As a side note to this, I can't tell you how much I dislike that being overweight is equated to being less moral of a person. It's not true, and it's usually spoken by people who would greatly prefer that their own moral lives not become a topic of discussion or condemnation. I think that's a safe statement - I don't know anyone who wants to become an object of self-righteous clucking. If there is free rein on telling people what they should be doing, lunch should not be the first topic of conversation. That it IS socially acceptable to pass vocal judgment on a person because of their weight is shameful.
To be clear, I am NOT talking about Dan. At all. This is coming from other recent RL stories I've heard that make me want to pull a Harper Valley PTA.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: As a side note to this, I can't tell you how much I dislike that being overweight is equated to being less moral of a person. It's not true, and it's usually spoken by people who would greatly prefer that their own moral lives not become a topic of discussion or condemnation.
The statement in your second sentence seems to clash with the behavior that you disliked in the first.
Consider the reversal: As a side note to this, I can't tell you how much I dislike that stating someone is overweight is equated to being less moral of a person. It's not true, and it's usually spoken by people who would greatly prefer that their weight not become a topic of discussion or condemnation.
That being said, I understand where you are coming from. Also Dan, your post is good food for thought, thanks.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The solution to the problem is easy. I need to realize that the vitues of thrift and obediance are second to the vitues of moderation and health. I need to not feel guilty about paying more for less food, or for leaving food on my plate. It is better to waste than to go to my waist.
You'd actually save more money buying just the amount of food that your body needs. Its like those shoppers that buy something because its on sale even though they don't need it. The only thing cheaper than a good deal is paying nothing at all.
Posts: 1733 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
BQT - did you read the third statement of my post at all? It explains that second statement. I don't mind quoting the cogent parts, but you had to take it out of context to make that criticism. I'll answer for what I said, but not for only selections of it that alter the meaning.
Let me put it another way: No one wants someone passing public judgment on their moral lives, so anyone who thinks that being overweight is the one area it's okay is being very unfair. To do that means defining someone who is overwieght as less deserving of respect or caring or humanity than themselves. Yes, that's a problem. Always.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
As you've explained yourself in your second post, it makes more sense. Honestly, the 3rd sentence that you refer to didn't offer the same explanation as your follow up post did for me. Even if I append your 3rd sentence as is to my reversal, it still doesn't sound quite right. Anyway, the point is that I didn't understand what you were saying, it sounded like the wrong thing to say to me, you've clarified, I see what you meant, and it's all good now. I can agree with the second paragraph of your second post.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
