- Image via Wikipedia
Donna Simpson is trying to become the fattest woman on earth. She has hit 600 pounds and is working hard to top that.
While trying to be the greatest is often a laudable goal, this one seems a bit questionable at best. After all, being so obese will have serious health consequences and intentionally doing harm to oneself would appear to be the wrong thing to do.
It could, of course, be argued that a person cannot wrong himself. This sort of reasoning can be based on the notion of consent. After all, consent can often make an action acceptable when that action without consent would be wrong. For example, if someone just takes my laptop, that is theft and wrong. But, if a friend asks to borrow it and I agreed, then that would not be theft.
Since Simpson is obviously consenting to her eating, it would seem to follow that her action is not wrong (despite the health risk she is imposing on herself).
However, it can be argued that while consent does change the ethics of a situation, it is not a silver bullet that eradicates all immorality. For example, suppose that a married man has consensual sex with a woman other than his wife. While this would be morally better than his raping the woman, her consent would not make the action morally acceptable. After all, the woman is still a party to adultery, despite her agreement to participate (and his as well).
So, perhaps Simpson’s consenting to her own fatness does not make it morally acceptable.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://i0.wp.com/img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png)
Not to mention that she has children….
The need for fame is becoming astoundingly destructive. People who are famous because they have a myriad of children, people who are famous because of all the people they sleep with.
Fame just means that many people you don’t know know who you are. Unfortunately, fame is not a matter of merit-people get to be famous for things that should actually be matters of shame or at least things that should not provide such attention.
Apparently she has a website where people pay to watch her eat–thus her eating is in some sense her employment.
In my mind since her eating is also in fact her employment, her situation is similar to others who earn money by putting their lives at risk.
People should watch someone drink themselves to death, too. Or perhaps hit themselves in the head with a hammer, or chainsmoke.
Magus, would these be so different from boxing or tightrope walking? Why?
Can’t argue there.
Simple. really. Boxing and tightrope walking, if they’re to be pursued for profit or as something more than merely stupid, life-risking activities, usually require training. One seldom hears of chainsmokers, drunks,or head-hammerers training for their “craft”.
Something we forget, too. This woman is taking more than her fair share of resources (food, healthcare, energy, etc.) That’s pretty wrong in and of itself.
I also think that she should lose custody of her child since she is endangering both her child’s life and her own life. (Not to mention that ultra-bad example she’s setting.)
True, she is eating food that could be donated to people who actually are in need. Rather than getting fat, she could donate that food to a homeless shelter, disaster relief or grad students.
What ever happened to live and let live? She is basically not harming anyone but herself, and her life expectancy is probably the same as an unmarried male’s.
A reasonable point. If we take the view that people should be able to act as they wish provided they do not harm others, then she should be allowed to do what she is doing. Naturally, we can comment that it is a bad idea. I’m following Mill’s view of liberty here.
Babson: “…She is basically not harming anyone but herself.” You’re KIDDING, right? She is not being a good citizen nor a good mother. Here’s what I wrote above: This woman is taking more than her fair share of resources (food, healthcare, energy, etc.) That’s pretty wrong in and of itself.
I also think that she should lose custody of her child since she is endangering both her child’s life and her own life. (Not to mention that ultra-bad example she’s setting.)
If you are THAT obese that you can barely walk a few steps, then you cannot take care of a child. You may need that child to take care of you.
That is a matter of legitimate concern. After all, she is intentionally “disabling” herself and that would seem to be a problem. The fact that she is doing it intentionally would seem to distinguish her case from situations in which parents are disabled by injury or involuntary disabilities.
Allie Haze