Topics Ethics

Question People often talk about 'being good' when they refuse a piece of cake or go to the gym, and feel guilty when they don't. But is there any moral virtue in imposing dietary or other restrictions on oneself in order to maintain or improve physical fitness or appearance?

Accepted:
September 18, 2007

Comments

Going to the gym soley because we want to be buff may not count as "being good," but one way to come at this question would be to ask whether we have duties to ourselves -- to take care of ourselves properly, for example. There are many ethical perspectives, philosophical and theological, that would say we do. Some of the reasons might have to do only with ourselves; others might have to do with the fact that if we don't take proper care of ourselves, we'll have more trouble carrying out our other duties.

Thinking about virtues and vices gives us another perspective on the question. Gluttonly, sloth and their slovenly cousins are traditionally seen as vices -- character traits that we should avoid developing or learn to overcome. Self-control, discipline and their kin generally count as virtues -- traits that a flourishing human being would cultivate and value. Of course, too much self-control and too much discipline are not virtuous; as Aristotle might say, there's a mean to be sought here. But most of us, on reflection, aspire to a life in which we aren't simply pushed around by our cravings and desires.

So yes: although I'd definitely counsel against strapping a spiked thong around your thigh, some forms of discipline and self-restraint may be good things, and feeling a little guilty when we miss those marks isn't really so strange.