Yeah, I’ve got another for you tonight. Sorry about the double duty, but it’s been a busy evening. You see I made the mistake of reading Slate--that always prompts some interesting thoughts. I made a real mistake in reading pieces by this guy, http://www.slate.com/?id=3944&cp=2100253 William Saleten. He’s conservative and he’s vocal and he writes on Human Nature.

I’m not irritated by him because he disagrees with me specifically--a lot of people disagree with me, some of you no doubt. I’m not even irritated because he chooses to voice his opinions; I feel it is extremely important that a dialogue exists between opposing views. He’s thoughtful and reasonably well educated in his writing so unlike Ann Coulter I think he does intend to help the world with what he does. I can respect that.

My problem, what I specifically take issue with, is that he demands people live up to his standards and lead their lives accordingly. My issue might seem strange because at first glance one might make the same argument against me. Obviously I am outspoken in my beliefs and obviously I think I am right. However, what I demand of the world isn’t that they agree with me, but that they don’t discriminate against me. It’s an extremely important distinction and if I haven’t made it clear I will have to go back and revise. True freedom is allowing all thoughts, no matter how appealing or unappealing, equally.

But there is a very large difference between allowing all thoughts without tolerating discrimination, and calling for a change in lifestyles you don’t think are correct. It is true that if people stopped smoking, lost weight, and stopped doing drugs the health concerns associated with those issues would go down (or outright disappear). It is also true that second hand smoke is unhealthy, your friends being fat can influence your own outlook on weight, and hanging out in a drug culture makes it more likely you will do drugs. I respect anyone’s right to remove second hand smoke from their lives, patron only establishments that don’t allow smoking, refuse to pass within twenty feet of smokers and so on. I also acknowledge anyone’s right to remove those influences from their lives that they find unhealthy such as fat people. But while you are allowed to pursue your life as you see fit, you are not, or shouldn’t be, allowed to dictate someone else’s. This is, of course, within reason. What is reason? Reason is the situation where unwanted harm to another human being is dealt. Specifically, murder, assault, rape, robbery, etc.

For this reason every restaurant/bar/pub has the right to ban smoking. But if an establishment clearly posts signs that it is smoking, then anyone entering said establishment is engaging in willful harm to his or her body when he or she enters. If people wish to make that choice, I feel they should be allowed. It is, perhaps, unwise, but unwise does not equate with unethical. Every person has the right to shop only at health food stores, exercise daily and remove from his or her life any friend that encourages him or her to abandon healthy pursuits. But if someone wishes to be lazy, weak, or fat, while unwise, again I don’t see it as unethical.

The reason that I take such a stand on these issues is that telling a person what s/he can and cannot do with his or her body is an amount of control I refuse to relinquish to a government. I refuse, actually, to relinquish it to anyone. I would accept advice, I would even accept intervention were my life at risk from a friend or loved one. But society urges these changes for an economic reason. Fewer dollars wasted. Yes, that is an admirable goal, but when did my body, my life, me, become a money making investment of my economy? That I agree to live by society’s laws is true, but laws are supposed to be ethical--do we want a society based on the ethics of consumerism?

Saleten makes smoking and obesity a moral issue. For him, hurting one’s body may very well be immoral. Certainly to hurt someone else’s body when s/he is unwilling is unethical, sometimes even when s/he is. But my choice to smoke in establishments that choose to allow it, doesn’t force second hand smoke on someone unwilling. And the morality of health, the only basis for forcing that on someone else, other than religious which should have no place in a debate concerning society as a whole, would be economic. And again, I’m not willing to equate how much money I can make/spend/contribute to society with morality.

It is all connected. Racism, classism, sexism--all the -isms. The same arguments were used to justify slavery, the subjugation of women and homosexuality. We have science to back it up now, scientific studies. They had science then. Our science is better--their’s was the best they had at the time. We are constantly reevaluating our surveys and studies and that is excellent. We are constantly looking for ways to improve our society and that is excellent. But here’s the rub: utopia is easy to achieve if you just force, or dupe, everyone into acting how you want them to. People must make the decision to be the best person they can be on their own. And discriminating against them in the meantime, again--when they are not inflicting unwilling harm on another--is no answer.

Business is business, but my life, me, I am not business. And there is a difference between demanding all follow your morality, and seeking out an ethical existence based on allowing freedom without stigma that provides the safest and most supportive community it can. With your family you can demand the former, but from your government you should always, always, demand the latter. Even if you agree with them now, there’s no guarantee you always will. And if you give up the civil right to live as you choose because you agree, there will be no one to fight for you, or with you, when you disagree.