0:03 - Opening Remarks
1:20 - Disarming the Opponent
3:12 - Predation and Uncertainty
8:08 - The Nature of Choice
14:50 - The Complexity of Communication
23:34 - The Assumption of Choice in Criticism
25:07 - Understanding the Limits of Criticism
This lecture critically examines societal perceptions surrounding obesity, moral judgments, and the implications of choice in evaluating individual behavior. The speaker begins by addressing a question raised about whether it is permissible to criticize overweight individuals, particularly those who may struggle with conditions like Hashimoto's. The discussion quickly escalates into the deeper implications of moral reasoning and how exceptions to general rules can complicate societal dialogues about health and personal responsibility.
A central theme emerges around the concept of disarming one's opponent in moral conflicts—how individuals may attempt to create exceptions that challenge universal rules to avoid accountability. The speaker emphasizes that this tendency undermines constructive conversation and contributes to an environment of uncertainty, which is often exploited by those with more selfish intentions. By utilizing the analogy of predator and prey, the lecture illustrates how uncertainty can destabilize individuals, much like a lion hunting a zebra, thereby reinforcing the dynamic of moral influence in society.
Throughout the lecture, the speaker articulates the importance of maintaining clarity and exercising moral judgment without getting bogged down by exceptions that can cloud communication. This is juxtaposed against the backdrop of modern political correctness and "woke" culture, which can complicate straightforward discussions about health and personal choices. The notion that general criticisms must always consider exceptions is presented as a means of stalling productive discourse.
The speaker strategically unfolds the dialogue by examining how criticisms typically apply to individuals in a state of choice. For instance, while recognizing the validity of exceptions (such as medical conditions that prevent weight loss), the speaker argues that most criticisms of obesity should focus on those capable of making choices regarding their health. Consequently, the lecture ventures into the philosophical underpinnings of judgment, rigorously dissecting the implications of free will and moral responsibility.
Further illustrative examples are employed to emphasize how criticisms must be contextualized, affirming that the critique applies to those who indeed possess the capacity to improve their situations. The distinction is made clear between individuals who actively choose unhealthy lifestyles and those who have genuine limitations beyond their control. By encompassing various scenarios—from individuals with severe medical limitations to those living without choice in extreme conditions—the lecture solidifies its argument against equating all overweight individuals under a blanket criticism.
The speaker concludes by reiterating the critical importance of understanding the implicit assumptions within criticism. Any expression of judgment assumes that the individuals being criticized possess the ability to choose differently. Recognizing this foundation is vital to fostering meaningful discussions about health, personal agency, and societal norms without falling into the traps of vague assertions and unproductive exceptions. This balanced approach encourages listeners to engage with these moral complexities and promotes clarity in evaluating personal accountability in the context of broader social expectations.
[0:00] Good morning, everybody. Great question from Facebook.
[0:03] Somebody says, very unoriginal question. If an obese person, e.g. With Hashimoto's, has to exercise seven times more for seven hours a day, as ChatGPT says, compared to one hour of exercise for a happier person, is it permissible to criticize such fat people? I don't know, but it seemed that the key question would be what proportion of fat people would have to exercise impractically so much. Does genie coefficient genetically determines such impracticalities that determine aesthetics and the happiness of most relationships? So this is, it's a great, you know, it's not an unoriginal question. It's actually a very deep question and it is kind of central to what is going on in life and society as a whole these days. So the general pattern goes something like this.
[0:47] Propose a rule and then somebody generally attempts, I'm not saying you, but in general people try to paralyze you with an exception. It is a way of making sure or trying to make sure that people don't have certainty. So disarming your opponent in any moral conflict is really essential. I mean, in conflicts as a whole, if you could disarm your opponent, I mean, if you're facing an enemy and you can deny them access to weapons and ammunition, well, you pretty much win the war, right?
[1:20] So getting people to be disarmed. Disarming people is foundational to conflict, like dishonest conflict, right? Honest conflict, you have your reason and you have your evidence and you have your debates and so on. So bad people want to disarm good people. Now, bad people are certain without any particular reason. They're just certain. They're operating at a fairly animal-like certainty, right? There's no compassion, there's no empathy, there's no reason. They're just, I mean, the technical word is sort of entitled. They just believe that they should have all of these great things, regardless of what other people want. They're selfish, and they want what they want, and they're certain about all of that. And they don't want you to be certain that you shouldn't give them what they want. They don't want that at all.
[2:14] Let's take an analogy from nature, and it's more than an analogy. This is actually how predation works. So if a lion is hunting a zebra, the lion wants the zebra to not know that the lion is there, right? That's why the lion has camouflage. That's why the lion creeps up and tries to stay downwind of the zebra. Like, hey, there's nothing here, just some rustling in the thick grass, right, in the tall grass.
[2:42] Now, when the lion gets close enough that the zebra can't help but notice that there might be something amiss, right? Maybe there's an odd scent. Maybe the rustling in the tall grass is looking a bit suspicious. But the lion does not want the zebra to be certain that there's a lion before he gets in striking distance. The lion wants the zebra to be full of doubt. Oh, I don't want to just run away for no reason because that's going to cost me energy and I might trip. but I also don't want to stick around. Uncertainty, right?
[3:13] So predation is all about making your victim uncertain, right? I mean, you have a balance between predator and prey, right? So if there was some prey species that had no way of knowing when a predator was coming, then the predator would just eat them, right? And they would go extinct, right? So there has to be some sort of balance, right? So, uncertainty is the mark of a prey species, and the predator wishes to infect the prey with uncertainty.
[3:50] So you'll see this a lot in movies where a certainty leads to mistakes. You jump to conclusions. There was a show in the 70s, I think it was, called Three's Company with John Ritter, Joyce DeWitt, and Suzanne Somers. I'm not proud I know that, but I do. And in it, it was always a misunderstanding.
[4:13] People jumped to conclusions, and they were wrong. So this was part of the general infection. and you get this all the time. You jump to conclusions in movies, you jump to conclusions and you're wrong. So, you know, the psychopaths and the sociopaths and the sort of sinister dark triad of personality traits are certain, but they wish to inflict uncertainty on their prey. This is why abusers push boundaries. I mean, really effective abusers, which is to say really nasty people, tend to push boundaries a little bit at a time. And that's because they don't want there to be enough of an issue that you actually rebel right away, right?
[4:54] They'll just take your rights a little bit, a little bit, a little bit. Not enough for you so that if you get upset and you get angry and you fight, then you look silly or ridiculous or you're easy to portray as crazy and unhinged and paranoid and all of that, right? So the infliction of uncertainty is essential for the predator-prey relationship. The infliction of uncertainty absolutely benefits the predator at the expense of the prey. In other words, the price that you pay for uncertainty is often the destruction either of your freedoms, your life, or in general, the factors that make life worthwhile, which is the exercise of your free choice in pursuit of moral goals. So uncertainty, you'll see this all the time.
[5:46] You propose a general rule, and then someone is going to say, well, what about this? And what about that? And what about the other?
[5:55] And that stuff will destroy you. I mean, mentally, whatever, let's just talk mentally for the moment, right? That stuff will destroy you. In other words, think of it this way. If a lion, and you know, obviously human beings are one species, I'm just using this as an analogy, right? But a lion, if he could disguise himself as a zebra and was working for the lions, the pride of lions, then what that disguised lion would do if his fellow lions were creeping up is he would attempt to calm the fears of the zebras. He would say, there's nothing there, you're just being paranoid, the lions are a long way away, I saw them miles away just this morning, they already ate three buffalo, they're not hungry, you know, you guys don't have anything to worry about. The scent that you're smelling of lion is just some old lion poop. And, you know, it's funny how the wind can carve the tall grasses to make it look like they're lions. But you guys just got to, you know, trust me, there's nothing going on. Don't, you know, relax and enjoy your day. This is one of the few days where you can really enjoy being a zebra, enjoy the food, enjoy the grass, enjoy the sun, and relax, right? That's what he would do. He would tell the zebras not to trust their instincts, and he would attempt to dispel their unease or their certainty.
[7:23] If he was philosophically minded, then what he would do is he would say, I mean, what is a lion anyway? You know, what are grasses? What is a zebra, right? And he would attempt to distract the prey with abstract questions that would get them ending up in a lion's belly, right? I.e. Platonism or, you know, rounds out of Kant or Nirvana for the Buddhists and so on, like abstract at questions that destroy instincts and eliminate certainty. I mean, the lions don't sit there and say, well, what is a zebra and what is a lion? The lions are hungry, and they just want to expend as little effort as possible in their pursuit of the zebras.
[8:08] So what this means is that if you feel like the most important thing you can do is not to shore up people's certainty, but to create exceptions for every rule, then you are working for the lions. You are delivering your fellow citizens into a predator's jaws. And it is an instinct. And I understand that instinct. And I remember many years ago, many, many years ago, I was training to be a security guard.
[8:45] And the situation came up that you know if there's some guy who wants to go see his girlfriend you dial up the girlfriend says don't let him in you can't let him in right and then i was like well what if you let him in and then she calls down and changes her mind but it was just this exceptions right create exceptions create complications give people abstract nonsense like trolley problems and hanging off the flagpole problems and you know the ethics of emergencies right if you want to get zebras eaten by lions, you get the zebras to start debating the existence of dragons or unicorns, and that way they're very much distracted when the lions come and they get better eaten, right? If a philosopher or thinker is not giving you practical certainty and practical plans on how to promote virtue and diminish the power of evil, well, that person is working for the lions, sorry to say, working for the lions. They are camouflaged, so to speak, right? So the reason I'm saying all of this is, of course, when you say, well, you know, we can have negative opinions of fat people, but what about people with incredibly rare disorders where it's very tough for them to lose weight?
[10:02] But of course, none of that means anything. That's all pure, distracting, convoluted, certainty-eradicating nonsense. So if someone doesn't exercise, we could call that person kind of lazy, right?
[10:16] And then what you do is you take the category of exercise to mean people who don't move, right? People who don't move much, right? They don't get on a treadmill or ride a bike or run or play tennis or whatever. So people who don't move. But that's not the category. People who don't exercise is in the category, of course, of people who can exercise, right? So if you've got a brother-in-law who sits on the couch all day and gets overweight, you might say to him, that's bad, you should exercise because he's physically capable of doing it. However, you don't go to your grandmother's grave three years after she died and say, Granny, I just mean to nag you because for three years you haven't gone for a walk. Like this is really because she's dead, right? So she can't exercise. Similarly, if you have a relative who's in a coma, then you do not blame that person for failing to exercise. Why? Well, of course, because they'd be in a coma, right? So if we say to people, it's bad to be fat, this is not all people, right? This is not all people. This is a fundamental error that people make. And I actually think, I'm not saying that you're corrupt, but it serves corruption, right? Until you're aware of it, right? You're just an innocent pawn to some degree.
[11:43] So if we say it's bad to be fat, we are including in that people who have the reasonable capacity to lose weight, right? Which is most people. We are not including in that people who have a medical condition that precludes them from losing weight or has them gain weight.
[12:06] It's sort of like saying, well, free speech is important. Well, what about people who are mute? They can't speak. Exercise is important. Well, what about people who are just recovering from surgery? They shouldn't exercise. Exercise then is bad for them in certain situations, right? So in every general statement is implicit, or at least used to be implicit before, I don't know, education fell apart and people stopped bothering to think. But in every general statement, there is an implicit statement to whom this applies, right? To whom this applies. So if there's a 20-year-old person who was born and raised in Japanese, the Japanese-speaking parents, but they're very bad at speaking Japanese and they can barely string any words together, we would say that this is probably indication of a significant cognitive deficit or problem or brain injury or something like that, right? However, if this person recently arrived from Australia and was just starting to learn Japanese and didn't grow up with Japanese, then clearly we would not say your ability to only speak a couple of words of Japanese indicates a brain problem. Of course not. I mean, the brain problem is simply that they're from Australia. It's nothing to do with Japanese. That's just a endemic to the continent. It's okay, of course.
[13:25] So when we say a failure to speak Japanese is indicative, or a failure to speak a language is indicative of a brain problem. We're talking about to whom it applies.
[13:38] So implicit, and this is understood, right? To, by reasonably intelligent people with a good degree of self-knowledge, the understanding that implicit in a general statement is to whom it applies, that's implicit, right? And it is not an intelligent thing to create situations where things do not apply and say you are somehow repudiating the general rule. So, in general, we might have negative opinions about people who are fat. I mean, in particular, because we are forced to pay for their health care, and they consume a lot more resources than they should, which is bad for the environment and so on, right? And, you know, general human care and compassion. So, we would say we could have negative opinions about people who are fat. Now, of course, we are talking about people who can choose to not be fat. Of course. Like, that's implicit. And the reason why that's implicit is there has to be a certain efficiency in our communication. Right? There has to be a certain efficiency in our communication.
[14:50] If we have to put every caveat in all the time, communication becomes impossible. And partly what is being done with this put in every caveat is to make communication boring and impossible. That's kind of part of the woke culture stuff.
[15:05] Where they're trying to make clear and simple communication so difficult. And there's so much blowback for clear and simple communication. You have to put in so many caveats that you can't communicate effectively. It's a way of paralyzing and harming people's ability to communicate, right?
[15:24] So, if I say, of course, right, that we can have negative judgments of obese people with, you know, some sympathy and compassion. A negative judgment doesn't mean, oh, they're horrible and hateful. It just means that it's not ideal to be fat. Of course, that refers to people who can choose to be slender. We're not talking about people who are kidnapped and force-fed at gunpoint. We're not talking about people who are in a coma. We're not talking about people who have various disorders, right? We're talking about people who can choose to be bad. So the category of judgment is those, you can judge negatively those who choose badly, right? You can judge negatively those who choose badly, right?
[16:10] You understand that, right? But implicit in the judging someone negatively is that they have the capacity to judge differently. And that of course is implicit in the fact that there's judgment involved right so if you say to someone you shouldn't judge overweight people negatively because there are a few overweight people who have a genetic or some other medical disorder that makes it very hard for them to lose weight and easy for them to gain weight we would say well yes so the fact that you are criticizing my judgment means that you want me to judge differently which means that you accept that I am in a state of choice when it comes to my judgment. I mean, to take a silly and extreme example, if somebody said, I judge fat people negatively, but it turned out that he had a gun to his back that you couldn't see and was being forced to say that, then we would not criticize that person for saying it because they would not be in a position of choice.
[17:06] When you criticize someone for having a negative judgment, you are saying you can choose differently. You are in a state of choice and you should choose better. So the fact that you criticize people for having negative judgments means that you accept that they are in a situation of choice and can choose better. So you accept that if they weren't in a situation of choice, in other words, if you knew that they had a gun to their back and were being forced to say something, you wouldn't judge them negatively. You would judge the person who had the gun to their back negatively and rightly so, right? So you can't say to people, I'm only going to judge you because you're in a state of choice. I'm only going to judge you negatively because you're in a state of choice. And then say, you can't judge people negatively because some people are not in a state of choice. It's a contradiction, a performative contradiction, right? I want to reiterate this because it's really important. If I say, I have a negative judgment to fat people, but I have a gun to my back and I'm being forced to say, you wouldn't judge me negatively, right? You'd have sympathy for me being in a situation of force, right? Being competitive, right?
[18:06] So when you criticize me for saying I have a negative opinion of fat people, you're saying, Stef, you have a choice, and you can choose better, and you can choose differently, and you should, and here's the feedback. But that's exactly what I'm doing with the fat people in this theoretical, right? I'm saying to the fat people, you have a choice, and you can choose better, and you probably should, right? So I'm talking about the people in a state of choice, just as if you're criticizing me for having negative opinions about fat people, you're putting me in a state of choice, and you're saying, Stef, you're in a state of choice, you should choose better, and you probably should, right? You should choose better. So if you're judging me by putting me in a state of choice and saying, Stef, you're in a state of choice, you should choose better, then you can't criticize. And if I were to say, well, no, you can't judge me because some people have guns to their back and are forced to say things, then you would say, but that's not you.
[18:58] When you say I criticize someone's statement and they should choose better, you're putting them in a state of free will and free choice. And therefore you can't put in the category of what they're criticizing people with no free will and no choice. Sorry, I'm trying to explain this as best I can. Maybe this would be easier with a diagram. If Bob criticizes Sally for being overweight, clearly Bob is saying Sally has a choice and can choose better. If you criticize as Bob for criticizing Sally, clearly you're saying Bob is in a state of free choice and should choose better. So you can't apply a category of you're in a state of free choice and choose better and then eliminate Bob's category of Sally's in a state of free choice and should choose better. You're saying that you can't take into account the fact that Bob might have a gun to his back, but then you start to introduce situations of no choice to overweight people such as this, what was it, Hashimoto's, some ailment where people have a tough time exercising and losing weight. So implicit in the criticism of people saying stuff is that they're in a state of free choice and can choose better and should, and therefore you can't introduce into that which they're criticizing people not in a state of free choice who can't choose better. It is simply a way of attempting to make those who make generalized statements implicit in those generalized statements being that people are in a state of free choice and can choose better. If you criticize all of that.
[20:28] You are in a terrible contradiction. And it is, obviously, I'm not saying this is conscious to this person who sent this message, but technically, it's ridiculously hypocritical, to criticize someone for saying, I have a negative opinion of obese people, and then saying, well, what about those people who can't choose? I mean, why don't you apply that category to people? Well, maybe he's got a compulsion. Maybe he's got Tourette's. Maybe he's got a tick. Maybe he doesn't mean it, right? In which case, you can't criticize anyone for having negative opinions of fat people. You can't criticize anyone because they might not be in a state of freedom. So you can't criticize fat people because they might not be in a state of freedom, but you can't criticize those who criticize fat people because they might not be in a state of freedom. Do you see what I mean? None of it makes any sense. The moment you criticize someone, you're saying, you're in a state of freedom and you can choose better, and that's assumed. And so when people criticize fat people, they say, you're in a state of freedom, you can choose better, and that's assumed.
[21:19] So in general, if you find yourself tempted to destroy people's certainty by saying, well, there's an exception. There's an exception. What about these people? What about that? Have you taken this? No. It's understood and perfectly clear. It's understood and perfectly clear that when you criticize either an individual or a group, that you are criticizing those members of that group who are in a state of choice and can choose better. That's implicit. That's understood in the very act of criticizing someone. That is what you are assuming. So the category of criticism to a group is not all fat people.
[22:04] Is all people who are overweight, who are in a state of choice, and can do better. What was it, Joey Swallow? You need to do better. That man has more hats than I have hairs. Oh, maybe that's not the right analogy, but... So, you sort of follow what I'm saying, right? And it is a way of just stalling the conversation, and it's the way of making yourself sound, quote, reasonable. Well, I'm reminding you that not all overweight people have the choice to lose weight. It's like, but I'm not talking about that. Clearly, I'm talking about the overweight people who are in a state of freedom and can choose to lose weight. Being underweight can be dangerous to your health. And so if people have access to more food and they remain underweight, they need to, they should probably choose better for their health, right? But if they're in North Korea and they're starving, you would not criticize them for being underweight if they're at a concentration camp, right, then you would not criticize them for being overweight because they're not in a state of choice, right? So if somebody says to you, if you say it's not great to be overweight, you say, well, what about the people who can't? They just can't lose weight. It's like, why would I?
[23:17] Are you assuming that I have a choice in what I'm debating, in what I'm arguing? I have a choice, right? You're trying to change my mind, which means I'm in a state of freedom and choice. So you're assuming that about me. I'm assuming that about fat people. Surely you understand that. It's not complicated. I'm talking about those who are in a state of choice, right?
[23:35] Those who are in a state of choice and can choose better. They have the options, right? I would not criticize someone's diet if they were lost on a lifeboat with only salt crackers, right? I would not criticize their diet because they have no choice. I mean, I guess maybe they could try and catch some fish with some crackers as bait or something like that, but they certainly can't choose to eat a steak, right?
[23:57] Just remember that's really, really important. The category of criticism implicitly assumes those people who are in a state of choice and can choose better. That is by definition. So bringing up people who are not in a state of choice is completely pointless. I mean, it is, like if somebody is a big fan of the carnivore diet, you got to eat, I don't know, red meat or something like that, right? You say, well, what about people who live on a tiny island with no animals and only fish? So, well, then they got to eat their fish. Like, of course, you're talking about people who have the choice to eat red meat. What about somebody who is lost on a desert island and can only eat coconuts and fish? Well, then they can't eat red meat, right? Unless a cow washes up or something, right? So, bringing up these exceptions is fundamentally misunderstanding the categorization of criticism. The categorization of criticism is always those who can do better, right? So, if somebody curses somebody else and they're in a state of choice and freedom, we might criticize that for being rude and obnoxious, right?
[25:08] However, if somebody has a neurological disorder like Tourette's syndrome, we would have some sympathy for that person because they're not in a state of choice. It is an involuntary tick, sort of like epilepsy in someone you wouldn't have.
[25:19] You wouldn't have a criticism of somebody who's not in a state of choice, right? So that's really important. Implicit in criticism is that the person is in a state of choice. Bringing up people who aren't in a state of choice is as useless as tits on a ball. So anyway, thanks Emil. FreeDomain.com to help out the show. We'd really, really appreciate it. Have yourself a wonderful day. I'll talk to you soon. Bye.
Support the show, using a variety of donation methods
Support the show
