- Joined
- Feb 9, 2013
Not "supposed to be" by what metric? I mean, you could reasonably argue that the human body is not supposed to engage in anal sex.So they are either overweight or obese. It's not healthy and not how the human body is supposed to be.
I don't like martial arts. I don't like skiing, hiking, climbing or motorcycles. (I really can't survive in the sticks, I prefer urban environments.)They are feeling moral superiority because their are morally superior. Indulging to excess, causing yourself to become unhealthy and a burden for others and society is morally lesser than taking care of your body, not indulging excessively and have better priorities than those who feel that it's more important to feel temporary pleasure in the now even if it's gonna cause them to die way earlier while their quality of life goes down immensely.
Take Scott Glenn, aka that blind guy from Daredevil. He's 75. He describe what he does in his free time as training in a variety of martial arts, being a gym rat, downhill ski, hiking, climbing and motorcycle tour and do track days on motorcycles, and open water spear fishing and free diving.
He doesn't live like a monk. Still enjoys good food, still enjoys wine and having a fun time or whatever. But with a little disciple, exercise and taking care of his body, he's doing more at 75 than I guess most people reading here will do in their lifetime. You don't need to live like a monk to make it to 110 years old, but by making right decisions for your body you can live a long active and healthy life that's gonna be great instead of living miserable tired years starting at 40 and dying in your mid-60s not having enjoyed much in that time aside from tv and more food.
The monk thing was just an example. I was trying to illustrate that I have different goals in life. Let's say in lieu of being a monk, I wanted to trade off a few years in exchange for a few more indulgences. So instead I'm dying at 90, but having a little more fun. Or what about 80 and a lot more fun? What about 70 and having the fucking time of my life?
My whole point is that a person's choices in life are highly personal. I love my vices. I enjoy life. It's certainly not the same life that Scott Glenn has, but I enjoy it nevertheless.
A life where I got to live an extra 30 years, but had to give up my vices, would be an exceptionally hollow life for me.
The closest thing to a good argument you make about the immorality of indulgence is how it affects the system at large. I agree with @AnOminous on that.
Otherwise your argument just seem to be an elaborate example of this:
(Now, as a footnote, perhaps I'm kind of biased in the situation. My vices aren't terribly degrading to health. So, maybe it's not really my place to speak for the heroin addicts and bedridden hamplanets of the world. But in general, I think I made some decent points.)