We talked yesterday about transhumanism reengineering us to be short to save the planet. Now, Peter Singer supports coercion to keep us from being fat. Hey! I have an idea: Promote smoking and cocaine and crack down on pot!
But I digress. Singer is no democrat, by which I don’t mean the political party. As a utilitarian, he doesn’t believe in rights per se. And as a utilitarian, he thinks that society can impose itself on the lives of individuals if they increase suffering broadly understood. Latest example, his call for airlines to charge overweight passengers more for tickets. From “Airlines Should Start Charging Overweight Passengers by the Pound,” published in Business Insider:
Is a person’s weight his or her own business? Should we simply become more accepting of diverse body shapes? I don’t think so. Obesity is an ethical issue, because an increase in weight by some imposes costs on others.
We are not an anarchy. Society has the right to control certain behaviors, of course. Criminal laws prohibit murder and fraud, as just two examples. Laws prohibiting assisted suicide—whether one agrees with them—intend to protect the despairing and the vulerable from death. But people who think like Singer want to expand the power of government to the point that we are only allowed to live according to the dictates of the power structure.
Singer discusses proposals by airlines to charge more for overweight passengers. If they think that serves their business interests, whatever. But are they going to have a scale at the gate? That idea, however, is just Singer’s entryway to promoting society’s ability to punish or prohibit personal behavior that those in power disfavor.
Indeed, obesity imposes a far more significant cost in terms of health care more broadly. Last year, the Society of Actuaries estimated that in the United States and Canada, overweight or obese people accounted for $127 billion in additional health-care expenditure. That adds hundreds of dollars to annual health-care costs for taxpayers and those who pay for private health insurance. The same study indicated that the costs of lost productivity, both among those still working and among those unable to work at all because of obesity, totaled $115 billion.
These facts are enough to justify public policies that discourage weight gain. Taxing foods that are disproportionately implicated in obesity – especially foods with no nutritional value, such as sugary drinks – would help. The revenue raised could then be used to offset the extra costs that overweight people impose on others, and the increased cost of these foods could discourage their consumption by people who are at risk of obesity, which is second only to tobacco use as the leading cause of preventable death.
Then tax media that promote promiscuity, from Playboy and Cosmopolitan magazine for their extolling of licentious conduct, and while we are at it, add in the ubiquitous movies and television shows that promote open sexual lifestyles. In fact, ban it! I don’t support that, but once the fat (if you will) is in the fire, there is no end to the potential impositions on what we do and how we act by the state. Singer concludes:
Many of us are rightly concerned about whether our planet can support a human population that has surpassed seven billion. But we should think of the size of the human population not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of its mass. If we value both sustainable human well-being and our planet’s natural environment, my weight – and yours – is everyone’s business.
But this is true about almost any personal decision. Those who act promiscuously, are more likely to contract an STD—costing society. Those who have many children are use more of society’s resources without necessarily paying higher taxes. Those with no children are more likely to have to be cared for by society in their old age. Those who have chronic diseases, are disabled, or fight for life against terminal diseases often cost the healthcare system more than they ever put in. The list could go on almost forever.
Of course, Singer isn’t obese. I always find it interesting that the lifestyle police never want the state to interfere with anything they do. In a Peter Singer world, liberty is at risk. The only question is who gets controlled and to what extent. And that depends on who is in charge.
