Mol, Annemarie. Moderation or satisfaction? Food ethics and food facts
In: Vandamme, Sofie; van de Vathorst, Suzanne & de Beaufort, Inez: Whose Weight is it Anyway? Essays on Ethics and Eating, Acco Academic Publishers, page 121-312.
The morality incorporated in food advice, especially in food advice meant to prevent obesity, is that eaters should be moderate. What might one say about this, in ethical mode? Is being moderate to be defended on ethical terms, or is calling for moderation moralistic and intrusive and should eaters be liberated from health advisors? In my contribution to the discussion about this nagging question, I will not offer an answer, but argue that it may not be the right question. In doing so, I will draw out the facts incorporated similarly in calls for moderation and in the anti-moralist revolts against them. Why build on these particular facts and not others? There are ever so many facts to do with food and they tend to come with different values attached. The different repertoires that make up nutrition science, have different ways of framing reality and seeking interference. And while moderation (or thrift) is central to one repertoire of fact-values to do with food, satisfaction (following on from pleasure) is central to another. This difference is linked up with different understandings of what a human body is. In calls for ‘moderation’, the human body is cast a greedy beast. To tame this beast, Man’s rational faculties, that is his will and his cognition, have to take control. In the repertoire where ‘satisfaction’ is appreciated as a good, bodies do not need to be controlled but deserve to be trained. As embodied beings, or such is the idea, we gradually develop our sensitivities in interaction with our surroundings. The art, then, is not to suppress our bodies, but to develop a good taste.
