Anemona Hartocollis reports that Mayor Bloomberg recently requested federal permission to bar New York City’s 1.7 million current food stamp recipients from using them to purchase sugary beverages like soda. The question is: is this ethical?
Well, the answer depends on how we are defining government. So, let’s examine two commonly utilized definitions: limited government and paternal government. Limited government, whether defined by Ibn Khaldun or Locke, is characterized by minimal governmental intervention in the liberties of the individual. Using this definition Mayor Bloomberg’s request is unethical because the welfare of the state as a whole does not depend on the health of the minorities affected by obesity or diabetes, seeing as how neither directly affects the participation of said minorities in the political unit. On the other hand, the purpose of a paternal government, according to Hegel, is to look after its constituents as parents would look after their children and promote their wellbeing. With this definition Mayor Bloomberg’s actions are well within reason because he is attempting to maintain the health of his people.
In terms of bioethics, however, this is clearly unethical. The parental government argument assumes that the people of a state are best represented by the political system. This ignores the fact that many of the people who constitute the political body are perfectly capable of informed consent. Not to mention, “the mayor requested a ban for two years to study whether it would have a positive impact on health and whether a permanent ban would be merited.” If this is approved, 1.7 million people will take part of a massive study without being consulted first, which is a clear violation of those people’s rights. Sure, approving the ban would allow food stamp recipients to purchase more nutritionally rich foods, but there is more to health than just sugar-intake. Therefore, Mayor Bloomberg’s request should not be approved.
2 comments:
I think that the issue is quite a bit more complex than you make it sound. In your argument you don't seem to have taken into account the fact that 1) the food stamps are being provided by taxpayer's money, so it is only fair to the rest of society that the food stamps be regulated by the government who are elected democratically by society and collect those taxes, and 2) people who use food stamps also have other money that they are free to spend wherever they choose - it is not as though they would be prohibited from ever drinking a soda, for they are free to purchase whatever they want outside of the taxpayer-provided money. Their rights have not been inhibited in any way.
You argue that the only way this ban could be morally justifiable is if you look at the government in the "paternal" definition. However, it is not necessarily true to state that "the welfare of the state as a whole does not depend on the health of the minorities affected by obesity or diabetes". If a portion of the population is very unhealthy, they will drain government resources with healthcare and other associated costs, thus negatively affecting the rest of the healthy population. The US is practically facing an epidemic - obesity really is a disease - so is it not the government's job to regulate and prevent the spread of this disease? Sugary drinks can be almost addictive to certain people, and lack self-control is one of the main reasons that there are so many obese people in the country despite there being plenty of healthier food options available. Granted, not everyone has the resources purchase all of the 'best' foods, but sodas are not even nutritionally valuable. Surely the purpose of food stamps is not to facilitate the indulgence of people's desires, but instead to protect people's basic rights for sustenance and thus survival? Sodas offer nothing nutritionally that cannot be better obtained from a healthier food source, and since people can still choose to purchase sodas with their own money, I think that a ban on purchasing soda with food stamps would be the right compromise between the rights of the taxpayers and the rights of those receiving the food stamps.
At first glance I opposed Bloomberg fervently because I felt it was the right of the food stamp receivers to choose what they want and need to consume. But on second glance I strongly support Bloomberg and his mandate. People are handed these food stamps for basic necessity, which includes solid food and water. These food stamps are meant to be used in order to sustain human beings-- not to satisfy their cravings for sugary drinks. Perhaps they can do this with their own cash, but when "money" is given to them because they are expressing that they do not have enough to buy food, then this "money" should strictly be used to buy healthy, sustainable food to provide a balanced diet.
I think you provide an excellent description of how the government's role can be interpreted. However, I think you need to look further into who is truly providing these food stamps. And that would be the taxpayers like you, me and everyone around us. I think someone could make a strong argument that Bloomberg is being perfectly ethical in protecting the taxpayers (his voters and the vast majority) by declaring this mandate. Taxpayers do not have it in their interest to pay to satisfy people's cravings for sugary drinks. I think you could turn to philosophy to provide evidence for this claim as well. Singer advocates the point that if it is in your power to help another, then you should and that surplus money should be spread amongst all to make for equality. The taxpayers are helping others by allowing their tax money (to Singer, this could be considered surplus) to pay for meals. However, I think he would agree that sugary drinks are not necessary to anyone's health and thus should not be covered by food stamps.
Post a Comment