This came up elsewhere - thought I'd get everyone's perspective here.
Does a human being have a moral obligation to be in top physical condition?
Yes?
No?
Other?
Does a human being have a moral obligation to be in top physical condition?
Yes?
No?
Other?
-
Re: Moral Fitness Obligation
Thu, November 1, 2007 - 10:47 AMBoy, I hope not, or it's straight to hell for me. -
-
Re: Moral Fitness Obligation
Thu, November 1, 2007 - 2:11 PMWhy would one have such an obligation? To imply that would degrade from the ownership of self. Morals are culture-specific and transient- I don't consider any moral an obligation. Ethics are concrete and universal- do not murder/rape/steal/etc- those are things you have an obligation to uphold, if you value honor in any sense of the word.
Now, on the other end, I think it's a great idea to respect your body and bring yourself to top physical condition. It's something I strive for and work toward almost every day, through good diet and lots of exercise. -
-
Re: Moral Fitness Obligation
Fri, November 2, 2007 - 4:03 AMperhaps an obligation to oneself to be in good condition...
-
Re: Moral Fitness Obligation
Fri, November 2, 2007 - 5:07 AMThen re-wording the question: Does one have an ethical obligation to be in top physical condition? -
-
Re: Moral Fitness Obligation
Fri, November 2, 2007 - 9:24 PMFitness has no part of ethics.
I define ethics as universal rights and wrongs. Obvious ones- Murder, rape, theft, coercion, fraud, etc. It amounts to one concept- he who initiates violence upon another is in the wrong. Violence can only be justified as a defensive action- be it for yourself or another person.
Keeping physically fit or not does not have any violent effect upon another human being, so as a rule, it cannot be ethically wrong.
The only obligation you have to fitness is a personal one. You honor your body by keeping it physically fit, and dishonor it by abusing it.
-
-
-
