A Philosophical Dilemma
The picture shown here is of a passenger on an American Airlines flight, as taken by a concerned flight attendant. I have seen it passed around and discussed, usually in discussions of whether or not larger passengers ought to be charged for a second seat.
After seeing this picture initially, my reaction was along the lines of, “Well, he got himself this way so he should be responsible for it!” But now I’m in a bit of a philosophical crisis over it. Look closely at the photo – this man is not only much wider but also far taller than the other passengers. Should this passenger be of a “normal” BMI, it is likely that he may require more than one seat anyway! Somehow I feel that it is wrong to charge an “average”-weight-but-very-tall passenger extra for their ride, but right to charge an obese person more. Why? Why do I feel this way?
No matter the reason for a person to require special accommodations, the end result is the same. Why, then, do I feel that a fat person should be charged more? Am I seeking to punish the grave social sin of being fatter than is deemed acceptable? Of course, it can be pointed out that one is not likely to grow to such a size without consuming animal flesh (wish does indeed fill me with a sickening sort of dread), but 98% of Americans (and ~90% worldwide) do the same and I am certainly not in the business of seeking retribution against them.
Have I identified a prejudice against fat people in my own mind?
December 5th, 2009 at 01:10
I can see where you are coming from Sara. I have pondered this many times, partially because of my former Nutritional Science Major, and partially because my own father, as well as other family members, are rather rotund. Now, I agree, until mass agriculture and farming, as well as a little gluttony, placed animal flesh at the top of mans favorite foods list, there were likely very few people that ever reached such massive proportions. But I think there are other problems at the root of this worldwide mass inflation. Convenience foods are everywhere. Fast food has become a major staple of most diets, most especially among lower income individuals (Which I’ve always thought odd–I can’t afford fast food. Where does that put me?). Sugar is everywhere and in everything. Our bodies have evolved a taste for certain things, but it evolved those tastes when food wasn’t so readily available. It seems some individuals have retained their evolutionary drive to consume enough food to survive. Their body rewards them with dopamine and seratonin, which causes a chemical dependency. Then there are people like my father, who eats to fill an emotional void. Ultimately, I think our ’society of convenience’ has translated into a myriad of problems. I’m torn like you are. Granted, some of these people aren’t responsible for their obesity. I’ve seen people with simply massive frames. They carry more weight just because that’s the way their body is shaped. But I really think this is the exception rather than the rule. People like to eat. I work at an all you can eat restaurant. I’ve seen the truly dark side of human appetite. I’ve seen individuals come in and consume as much food in one sitting as I do all day. But then these people go home and sit on their couches and watch TV, or play on the computer, or any other inactive activity. They aren’t out running or lifting weights. They might do it for 2 weeks ever new year as part of a hopeless resolution, but they hurt because of how far they’ve let their bodies go, so it’s hard to exercise, and they just give up. It’s a sad state of affairs. But while I excuse some on the basis of genetics, I also hold some accountable. Our bodies are amazing machines. They are designed to sustain heavy physical loads. They are designed to endure and persevere. I guarantee that if people, regardless of frame size, exercised regularly, they would be healthy. I’m not saying they would be much smaller, but they would be medically and emotionally healthy. That’s what’s really important.
Of course, looking at the guy in this picture, I can’t really tell if he’s just a large framed man (He definitely looks like he could be), or if he’s packing a few extra donuts on that thing.
And as for tallness vs. wideness discrimination, I’ve never seen a person that was so tall it interfered with the ability of others to fly, or caused the airline to lose money because they couldn’t seat another person next to them due to their body mass. I’m gonna side with the airlines on that aspect.
December 9th, 2009 at 01:19
With other commodities, such as food, clothing and gasoline, we expect for those that require more of these commodities to cough up the extra cash. I think that space on an airliner is a commodity as well, so it makes sense that those who require more space should pay for that extra space, whether they are inherently large or have done the work to become dangerously obese. I don’t think the issue here is one of discrimination–for example, I’m not being discriminated against if I have to pay for glasses and contact lenses while a person with perfect vision does not. The airlines just aren’t designed with exceptions to the norm in mind, and chances are that the man couldn’t afford to pay for two seats.