Bellyempire:
I guess the only thing would be the health issues that come with it. Some one would have to care for the immobile person. So when making the decision to become immobile it impacts someone elses life and impacts society indirectly by diverting resources to support that persons upkeep and welfare.
Malvineous:
I agree with your first point, the gainer should explore this lifestyle with a supportive partner and try not to lay the responsibility for their needs at their relatives' feet, if possible. That's just being considerate. The part about burdening society though, I've heard that argument from fatphobic people before, and the problem with it is that it doesn't apply the same standard to any other medical issue. If we're to start questioning how deserving people are of medical care based on whether they were at fault for needing it in the first place, that opens the door to a pretty dark place.
Diabetes is a lifestyle disease based on diet, so do diabetics deserve taxpayer funded insulin? Do smokers deserve treatment for lung cancer? Should athletes be treated for spinal injuries? If someone becomes disabled due to a car accident that was preventable, do they have a right to a wheelchair? Should drug addicts get medical intervention to prevent an OD? The number of medical conditions that are at least partially caused by the patient is staggeringly high.
Another issue with the argument is that anyone paying into the system through taxes should be deserving of the benefits that come from the system they are helping to pay for. In that way, taxes should at the very least be a sort of life insurance for tax paying citizens, otherwise what is the point of paying in the first place? As a society that doesn't like to be thought of as cruel, we also try to extend those same benefits to people who are unable to pay taxes, because most people would agree that every person is deserving of having their basic survival needs met, regardless.
Also, the wider impact on society of some people choosing to gain a massive amount of weight is negligible, especially since it's such a niche interest that very few people will actually attempt. I'm willing to bet that the vast majority of people who need obesity-related healthcare are not doing so intentionally. That's not an ethical point, but it's still true. It's like saying that if everyone who went to the moon took home a pebble as a souvenir, then eventually there would be no moon rocks left at all. Might be true in a hypothetical fantasy, still absurd given the reality.
I guess the only thing would be the health issues that come with it. Some one would have to care for the immobile person. So when making the decision to become immobile it impacts someone elses life and impacts society indirectly by diverting resources to support that persons upkeep and welfare.
Malvineous:
I agree with your first point, the gainer should explore this lifestyle with a supportive partner and try not to lay the responsibility for their needs at their relatives' feet, if possible. That's just being considerate. The part about burdening society though, I've heard that argument from fatphobic people before, and the problem with it is that it doesn't apply the same standard to any other medical issue. If we're to start questioning how deserving people are of medical care based on whether they were at fault for needing it in the first place, that opens the door to a pretty dark place.
Diabetes is a lifestyle disease based on diet, so do diabetics deserve taxpayer funded insulin? Do smokers deserve treatment for lung cancer? Should athletes be treated for spinal injuries? If someone becomes disabled due to a car accident that was preventable, do they have a right to a wheelchair? Should drug addicts get medical intervention to prevent an OD? The number of medical conditions that are at least partially caused by the patient is staggeringly high.
Another issue with the argument is that anyone paying into the system through taxes should be deserving of the benefits that come from the system they are helping to pay for. In that way, taxes should at the very least be a sort of life insurance for tax paying citizens, otherwise what is the point of paying in the first place? As a society that doesn't like to be thought of as cruel, we also try to extend those same benefits to people who are unable to pay taxes, because most people would agree that every person is deserving of having their basic survival needs met, regardless.
Also, the wider impact on society of some people choosing to gain a massive amount of weight is negligible, especially since it's such a niche interest that very few people will actually attempt. I'm willing to bet that the vast majority of people who need obesity-related healthcare are not doing so intentionally. That's not an ethical point, but it's still true. It's like saying that if everyone who went to the moon took home a pebble as a souvenir, then eventually there would be no moon rocks left at all. Might be true in a hypothetical fantasy, still absurd given the reality.
Very well put.
2 years
