Monday, March 11, 2019
Obesity and Paternalism
Rates of obesity in the United States are alarming -- and efforts to reverse the trend seem ineffective. According the Center for Disease Control and Prevention 38 percent of U.S. adults are obese and 17 percent of teenagers are as well. Another third or so of Americans are overweight. Obesity can lead to serious health condition such as heart disease and diabetes. Some governments have attempted or considered paternalist interventions to stem the tide of obesity. For example, New York City attempted to ban the sale of soda pop in sizes greater than 16 oz. Other cities such as Berkeley and Philadelphia have passed a soda tax. In Philadelphia distributors are taxed 1.5 cents per once on soda pop and other sweetened drinks: a 2 liter bottle of pop that used to cost $1.79 sells today for $2.79 because of an added dollar in tax. These laws are intended to help consumers in these cities -- but have they gone too far? Are these laws and taxes justified? Why or why not?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I believe that some of these laws are justified. However, according to Mill’s philosophies discussed in his book, On Liberty, all these laws are not justified because they unnecessarily take away liberties from people. Yet, I still believe that laws like the 16oz law, which focus on making it harder to buy and/or consume many high sugar/high fat products, makes sense. Soda or high fat foods and drinks are not unhealthy for people, but because of their high content in one area, they can easily make a diet unbalanced. Therefore, laws encouraging a more balanced meal makes more sense to help the overall health of the population. Also, these laws do not prohibit people from buying as much soda as they want, but just make it inconvenient to but large amounts of soda at a single time. Moreover, it should not be the duty of a business to maximize convenience for its buyers, so, there is no reason why businesses can only sell 16oz or smaller bottles of soda.
ReplyDeleteHowever, the laws, which increase the price for high sugar content dinks, may effectively lower the sugary drink consumption for middle class individuals; however, will most likely not affect high-class individuals, and discriminate against financially struggling individuals and families. However, in general, the more tax there is, the more discriminated people there are, whether they are in a struggling financial state, a stable financial state, middle class, or lower class. Mill explains this concept in his last chapter, which focuses on the applications of his philosophies. In the chapter, Mill analyzes an example where the state imposes a tax on alcohol for the sole purpose of discouraging people to drink it. This example can be directly applied to the case of taxation on sugary drinks.
So, if put in the context of taxing sugary drinks, Mill’s beliefs explain that, “To tax stimulants [like sugary drinks] for the sole purpose of making them more difficult to be obtained is a measure differing only in degree from their entire prohibition, and would be justifiable only if that were justifiable” (Mill 99). Therefore, in order to impose a tax on sugary drinks, its prohibition must also be justified. Furthermore, earlier in the chapter, Mill address the justifiability of a prohibition with the example of poisons. When put it the context of sugary drinks, Mill’s beliefs state that, “If [sugary drinks] were never bought or used for any purpose except [to damage one’s health], it would be right to prohibit their manufacture and sale. They may, however, be wanted not only for innocent purposes, but [for healthy] purposes, and restrictions cannot be imposed in one case without operating in the other” (Mill 95). Therefore, because sugary drinks can be healthy and have beneficial purposes, its prohibition is not justified. So, since the taxation of anything is only justified if its entire prohibition is justified, then a taxation on sugary drinks is not justified.
In summary, the taxation of sugary drinks or food with an imbalanced nutritional content is not justified as shown in the philosophical arguments made by Mill in his book, On Liberty. However I believe that a law, which makes it inconvenient to buy large quantities of soda is justified because it indirectly encourages a balanced diet, without prohibiting people from buying as much soda as they want, nor discriminates large groups of people.
I believe that these laws are designed with the well-being of the citizens in mind. Logically, if someone could spend more money on food that is bad for them they could just as easily spend money on healthy food. If the prices are similar, it technically makes healthier food more available. I would argue that one of the primary factors that cause people to go eat fast food is that it is fast; healthier foods generally take more time to prepare and are more complicated than a burger and fries. Personally I have found myself falling victim to that recently, so I think that a better alternative to a tax on fast foods and soda would be to find a way to make healthy food much easier to access and more convenient for the consumer. That being said, the legal side of my perspective is different. I think that every person has the ability to make their own decisions about what they eat, and there doesn’t necessarily need to be a law for people to make good decisions. Some things inherently need a law for people to be better, such as stop signs or traffic lights. But food is a choice that most people are able to make on their own, and they can hold themselves accountable for what they eat. In conclusion, I think that there are better solutions to a tax on fast food or soda but I also think that the law does not need to intervene about people’s choices regarding food.
ReplyDeleteIn his influential book, On Liberty, John Stuart Mill discusses both the Harm to Others Principle as well as the Harm to Self principle. The issue of obesity clearly falls under the harm to self-principle, as obesity truly on effects oneself. However, there are still arguments that can be made that obesity could fall under Harm to others as the massive cost of healthcare, as well as the strain it causes on families. However, those arguments for Harm to Others are non-unique, as those same arguments could be made for any disorder. Having classified obesity as Harm to Self, Mill’s opinion on it becomes clear. In his book, Mill concedes that Harm to Others is a limitation of liberalism. However, Mill argues that many times, there is a moral dilemma in laws regarding Harm to Self. Specifically, on the issue of a sin tax, Mill states that, “To tax simulants for the sole purpose of making them more difficult to be obtained is a measure differing only in degree from their entire prohibition; and would be justifiable only if that were justifiable. Every increase of cost is a prohibition, to those whose means do not come up to the augmented price; and to those who do, it is a penalty laid on them for gratifying a particular taste. Their choice of pleasures, and their mode of expending their income, after satisfying their legal and moral obligations to the State and to individuals, are their own concern, and must rest with their own judgment” (99). In this case, Mill argues that a sin tax is effectively a prohibition on those who cannot afford it, and an unnecessary burden on those who can. For that reason, Mill would oppose the tax. In my own point of view, competition in the 21st century has reduced products like soda to an extremely affordable price. That means the only part of Mill’s argument that still stands is the burden on those who can afford it. I think that is a good thing, because if we as society can incentivize healthier living as a whole, healthcare costs would go down, making it a Benefit to Others.
ReplyDeleteTaxes to prevent obesity are justified. A society should have the right to protect the health of its own citizens, even when the health risk is self-made. This is because unhealthy people are a hindrance to society by costing it money, and we ought to tolerate any reasonable measure taken to increase the health of its citizens. This hindrance to society is a harm to others caused by singular persons, and any principle would prevent this from occurring. Unhealthy citizens cost money and resources because they are more likely to use medical services. Beyond that, they are also less productive, and thus decrease from total economic output. That decrease in output costs society money in a similar manner to increased health costs. Taxes created to prevent obesity and other self-made health crises, like smoking, are a way not only to prevent this loss in economic activity, but are also a way for society to make up for any loss in economic activity. The tax will deter people from consuming the product, thus decreasing the health risk. That deterrence decreases the amount of lost productivity and the amount spent on medical services. If it does not deter people from consuming the product, however, than it will act as a redress to the lost economic output. The government will increase its revenue flow and will then be able to offset the loss in productivity. This is necessary because decreased economic activity is a hindrance to society. Increased spending on medical costs takes money away from other important activities such as education and infrastructure. This is beneficial to society; they increase economic output, becoming a virtuous circle, and they would raise the quality of life of society’s citizens. However, public health risks divert costs away from these beneficial activities and prevent that growth to society. A decreased quality of life hurts many. Decreased output is also a hindrance to society because it decreases wages and consumer spending, creating a vicious circle where society generates less and less economic output. A sluggish economy can only create a poorer quality of life for all of society. Decreased output also decreases government revenue preventing the other benefits of society mentioned above from taking place as well. Society ought to deter people who consume products that make them a public health-risk through sin taxes. Public health risks decrease economic output and government spending, causing a worse quality of life for society as a whole. That loss of quality of life is a harm brought unto others by singular persons. Thus, a deterrence through sin taxes should exist to restrict the ability of that public health risk to grow. A sin tax can also redress the economic costs incurred by public health risks. Any moral principle would support such a tax because of the harm that public health risks cause to others.
ReplyDeleteWhen considering these types of laws, I am sure lawmakers have the well-being of the people in mind. Although this is true, I do not believe any laws such as those mentioned in the prompt would ever create a large effect. When I think of why I often eat junk food, it’s often because they are cheaper and faster to eat. Many times that I am at the grocery store I see healthy alternatives to multiple foods, but they are often more expensive and would often also be more expensive than foods with a sin tax such as the $1.00 tax on liters of pop mentioned in the prompt. This is also harmful to the community in the way that the sin taxes would be taking away a family’s hard earned money when it is not necessary. In my opinion, an effort by the government to educate the people on the benefits of a healthy diet and putting junk food aside. Although I have gotten the basics on healthy eating habits, I am still not really sure on how to execute a healthy diet. This should change in the spring after my senior project, in which I am working at a CrossFit gym. In many cases I am sure people often eat poorly because they are simply unaware of the harms that it could bring to them and their families. So in short, I believe that the idea of finding a way to benefit the health of a group of people is justified, but disagree with the means in which was represented in the prompt. It is unnecessary for the government to take extra money from people who are working hard to earn it, and sometimes may not have the means to pay extra for healthy foods. The only way this could work is if there was a measurable sin tax placed on all junk food and unhealthy drinks. But this is very unlikely so the best and I think easiest option would be that of the government taking charge and educating its people on how to live a healthy and happy lifestyle.
ReplyDeleteThese laws were implemented for health concerns, and even though anyone can consume whatever they want they still have that right; These laws are only making it harder to buy bad foods but not prevent anyone. Although these laws and taxes are justified by helping others, it still is not going to do much. The only change that should be made is what is put into food and how it is made. If there were taxes on all processed foods then people will probably buy less, or even making less of the product will raise the value. An even better approach would be to stop putting chemicals or other preservatives in the food overall, but then we also risk less economic output, which is more of a complex topic. Putting sin tax on "unhealthy" foods would partially solve the issue; it is not only that junk food tastes good, but it is also that its convenient. Some people may not care as much on what they spend on unhealthy food since healthy food also would cost around the same, so people buy junk food not just for taste but for convenience. People primarily buy this food because it is quick and available at your figure tips, as well as affordable. In conclusion, putting tax on "soda" or other junk foods will not go far in terms of preventing obesity, but it also will not do nothing either.It is interesting comparing food tax between America and other countries and comparing societal health/obesity because that will show what is working and what isn't. For example, Italy has a less obesity rate than America, and that is because they have more fresh food than junk/fast food available. Overall, I understand why these laws would be implemented, and that they are only put in place to better public health because that benefits our economy as a whole.
ReplyDeleteWhen we consider the liberties, on which America was founded, than it would be wrong for the government to enforce certain lifestyles on to its people, however in today’s changing climate these laws would be justified. In the past, with limited knowledge on what constituted a healthy lifestyle it would have been hard for the government to insert itself into the lives of it citizens on the grounds of promoting a health. Additionally, in the age prior to many social services utilized in the United States today, which are funded through the publics tax dollars, if the government was not doing anything to help the people then it should not limit their freedom in the name of health. However, today there has been extensive research that shows the detriments of all of the products that are additionally taxed under these bills. These products are extremely harmful for the citizens of the United States and at a point in history were health is at the forefront of many people’s minds, even if it is not an ultimate goal, the government has the right to enforce taxes to keep its people healthier. Additionally, when people are benefiting from the governments dollar, than the government has the right to influence them to ensure that they are taking to preserve their own health at home. If your medical expenses are being paid for by the government than the government is justified in retaining the right to increase the prices on things that are going to increase the expenses that they pay for. If the people are using the government, than the government gets to limit that.
ReplyDeletePaternalism is an effective measure to ensure the well-being for all members of society, similar to how small children are kept safe if their parents tell them not to touch a burning hot dish or a sharp object. Though paternalism must be executed properly, or else it will be treated as a “don’t do it just because,” all parties involved must understand why they are being constricted. There must be a cohesive partnership between the government setting the regulation and informing citizens, companies adhering to these conditions as a supplier, and consumers understanding why they should not demand products such as 2-liter bottles of soda.
ReplyDeleteSugar is not exactly a necessity and most certainly not the 212 grams found in a 2-liter of Coke. Consumers should understand that if they routinely consume those 53 sugar cubes in the beverage, it would affect their health in a detrimental manner. Alongside government regulation, there should be a marketing campaign that will help consumers understand the new decision, similar to the anti-smoking advertisements that have proven effective. Companies will be incentivized to produce healthier products that would appeal to the consumer’s new demands. Though it seems extreme, paternalism should be used in scenarios like the soda tax, because the Medicaid/Medicare bills from sugar related health problems is footed by the taxpayers. Paternalism is justified if preformed correctly since there should be very little backlash while the country as a whole could become healthier.
This issue is conflicting for me because I believe in individual liberty and the right to make decisions for and by oneself. However, health is one area that I believe the state has the duty to regulate in order to protect its citizens. The state is justified in attempting to prevent the consumption of foods that are known to directly lead to obesity, one of the most if not the most important public health issue that we face. Although sugary beverage taxes would fall under the category of trying to prevent harm to self, they also would prevent harm to others. First, Dworkin defines the criteria for justified legal paternalism as far-reaching, irreversible, and dangerous. Obesity is a disease that fits all of these criteria. Obesity has far-reaching consequences and is clearly dangerous, as it can lead to Type II Diabetes, cardiovascular conditions, and many other very serious medical conditions and diseases. Obesity can lead to conditions that are irreversible, such as early mortality. Obesity also leads to harm to others. Interestingly, in addition to obesity in the mother possibly leading to issues such as birth defects in the child, an obese father may alter the gene expression in his sperm that puts his child at a greater risk for obesity. To cause birth defects or increase the likelihood of obesity in your own child when it possibly could have been prevented, especially considering effects such as diabetes or cardiovascular disease, would be a grave injustice and harm to the child. Additionally, obesity causes harm to others due to its enormous burden on the healthcare system. I think that due to the harm caused by obesity, laws and taxes such as the soda tax are justified in protecting citizens. Others may argue that it puts an unnecessary burden on individuals who want to purchase products such as soda, to which I would respond that those individuals put an unnecessary burden on the healthcare system. Some may argue that simply a soda tax would be ineffective because people will turn to other concentrated sources of sugar like juice or candy. I would respond that they should be included to, as should other foods that are clearly known to lead to medical issues such as obesity. In addition, others would argue that taxes such as soda taxes disproportionally affect the poor, to which I would respond that the taxes gained should be used to subsidize healthy foods, especially for the poor. I think that one crucial point is that although you can argue that individuals should be able to make whatever decisions they want regarding what they choose to consume, there is an issue today with misinformation and a lack of knowledge regarding nutrition. Misinformation and lobbying from organizations such as the National Dairy Council make it difficult for many Americans to make the best decisions regarding their family’s nutrition. Because of this, many Americans do not fully understand the implications of their nutritional choices and its effects on themselves and on others. We don’t live in a perfect world where all Americans are fully informed about the nutritional decisions that they are making and the law needs to reflect this reality.
ReplyDeleteI believe that these laws are justifiable as they relate to J.S. Mill’s principle of paternalism. I could not pinpoint whether this was hard or soft paternalism, but the idea remains the same. The reason being is that it is both. The government wants people to consume less sugar not only for their own good, but so the obesity crisis does not continue and we do not spend further money on it, plunging us further into debt when we can easily do something about it – something that these laws help with. Additionally, these laws do not prohibit people in any way from getting their soft drinks. I am personally an advocate for not drinking too many soft drinks, as I rarely drank them growing up and realize how much sugar one bottle of coke has. Not only sugar, but also artificial flavors and ingredients that have been proven to lead to many problems. These crises are quite literally killing our nation, and taking small steps like this one show that soda and obesity are problems, while not taking away the right to purchase soda, in fact hardly raising the price at all. By enforcing these laws, we are not only helping save one life, but millions upon millions that our future generations and countrymen will thank us for.
ReplyDeleteUnder a soft paternalistic view, increasing the price of unhealthy foods and drinks is justified. A soft paternalist would argue that the state should coerce me to do what I think is in my best interest. This is for two reasons. The first argument said paternalist would make is that eating healthy is really something I want to do because I think its beneficial to me, but I don’t do this because I’m an irrational human. Thus, a little state coercion to incentivize me to take certain action I think is beneficial but otherwise wouldn’t do is justified. The second argument is that my being healthy actually functions as a prerequisite to me perusing any of my own interests because without being healthy I’m more prone to being sick and incapacitated from following my own activities. Thus, even before I think about doing whatever I want the state is justified it making me do what’s in my best interest, getting healthy, so I can peruse what I find most interesting. Eating and drinking healthy foods and drinks totally satisfies this criteria, since if I’m not coerced to do so I may not given all my imperfections as an irrational human. This hurts my health and therefor my ability to peruse other things I find meaningful, like rock climbing or walking. Mills would argue that there’s no real philosophical difference between outright banning something and making it harder to obtain, which I agree with. If we are to say we should operate under a paternalistic framework there’s no reason why we can’t simply do what other paternalistic countries like Canada do and just ban cereals that are deemed too unhealthy. The only argument in favor of a tax instead is that with a tax you not only have the prospect of less unhealthy folk because eating poorly is disincentivize, but you also have a government with more tax revenue it can spend on social services like health care that also benefit the health of agents. At this point I’ve changed my mind on the whole issue, because even if it feels kind of wrong to us as Americans to ban eating the types of food people want to eat, a reasonable soft paternalistic view makes it obvious that the answer is to do just that.
ReplyDeleteIt is evident that obesity is a problem in today’s society, and something needs to be done about it, but I do not know if taxing pop is justified. If Mill were to put his two cents into this argument, he would be leaning towards the idea that the government should not be allowed to enforce these laws. I believe the argument about taxing soda is very similar to his example of taxing/banning poison because both substances show clear negative effects on the human body and the laws both have to do with preventing harm. Mill sums up his point on poison by saying, “If poison were never bought or used for any purpose except the commission of murder it would be right to prohibit their manufacture and sale. They may, however, be wanted not only for innocent purposes, but useful purposes, and restrictions cannot be imposed in one case without operating in the other” (Mill 95). What Mill is saying is that the government shouldn’t be able to prohibit people from purchasing something that can be of use in one’s life. Soda has benefits and even though there are cons, it doesn’t mean the government should make it harder for one to acquire. Soda is not even the only reason people suffer from obesity. People eat too much dessert, so what is next. No more dessert. Personally, I believe that people should be allowed to make their own choices because if we become a society in which everything is being modified, we are going to lose individuality. Once individuality is lost, that is where progress in society stops. Overall, I don’t think these laws are justified because they are unnecessarily making people’s lives harder.
ReplyDeleteIt is evident that obesity is a problem in today’s society, and something needs to be done about it, but I do not know if taxing pop is justified. If Mill were to put his two cents into this argument, he would be leaning towards the idea that the government should not be allowed to enforce these laws. I believe the argument about taxing soda is very similar to his example of taxing/banning poison because both substances show clear negative effects on the human body and the laws both have to do with preventing harm. Mill sums up his point on poison by saying, “If poison were never bought or used for any purpose except the commission of murder it would be right to prohibit their manufacture and sale. They may, however, be wanted not only for innocent purposes, but useful purposes, and restrictions cannot be imposed in one case without operating in the other” (Mill 95). What Mill is saying is that the government shouldn’t be able to prohibit people from purchasing something that can be of use in one’s life. Soda has benefits and even though there are cons, it doesn’t mean the government should make it harder for one to acquire. Soda is not even the only reason people suffer from obesity. People eat too much dessert, so what is next. No more dessert. Personally, I believe that people should be allowed to make their own choices because if we become a society in which everything is being modified, we are going to lose individuality. Once individuality is lost, that is where progress in society stops. Overall, I don’t think these laws are justified because they are unnecessarily making people’s lives harder.
ReplyDelete