Are diet foods immoral?

[HerCrazierHalf]

Is the consumption of diet foods such as artificial sweeteners, Olestra, etc immoral or at the least “disordered”? An odd question, but seems appropriate.

As has been presented here regarding abc, altering the parties or materials of a natural act to avoid the natural outcome is disordered. I’m not distorting teachings on abc, but wouldn’t the logic mean that diet foods are also disordered?

In this case I do not mean portion control or using less sugar. I mean the use of artificial sweeteners and such designed to taste and be consumed like their real counterparts while trying to avoid their natural ends. I suppose this could be extended to supplements or drugs that interfere with the absorption of fats.

Thoughts?

 

[fisherman_carl]

I would say no. Just because you may have an artificial sweetener in your drink does not mean you are not providing sustenance for your body. It would be different if you were drinking turpentine though.

 

[Tarpeian_Rock]

Is the consumption of diet foods such as artificial sweeteners, Olestra, etc immoral or at the least “disordered”? An odd question, but seems appropriate.

As has been presented here regarding abc, altering the parties or materials of a natural act to avoid the natural outcome is disordered. I’m not distorting teachings on abc, but wouldn’t the logic mean that diet foods are also disordered?

In this case I do not mean portion control or using less sugar. I mean the use of artificial sweeteners and such designed to taste and be consumed like their real counterparts while trying to avoid their natural ends. I suppose this could be extended to supplements or drugs that interfere with the absorption of fats.

Thoughts?

Not a moral problem. Going down this line of thought (altering materials of a natural act) can bring you to some dark and distorted places: hybridizing food? Anesthesia in childbirth? Removal of diseased organs? Spraying week killer? Decaffienated coffee? All of these things alter natural materials or processes that otherwise would proceed down their own path dictated by “nature,” and none is a moral problem.

 

[HerCrazierHalf]

Not a moral problem. Going down this line of thought (altering materials of a natural act) can bring you to some dark and distorted places: hybridizing food? Anesthesia in childbirth? Removal of diseased organs? Spraying week killer? Decaffienated coffee? All of these things alter natural materials or processes that otherwise would proceed down their own path dictated by “nature,” and none is a moral problem.

Then how does this differ from the prohibition on altering the martial embrace? Allowing the natural ends of a process or act to occur seems to be an overwhelming factor in determining morality. The possibility of pregnancy (no matter how remote) is a natural end. So too is providing ones body with sustenance a natural end of eating. Though eating too much carries sequences.

With the exception of decaf coffee, what you listed is either part of our dominion over the plants and creatures of the earth or attempting to treat the consequences of our imperfect nature.

 

[Corki]

**Then how does this differ from the prohibition on altering the martial embrace? ** Allowing the natural ends of a process or act to occur seems to be an overwhelming factor in determining morality. The possibility of pregnancy (no matter how remote) is a natural end. So too is providing ones body with sustenance a natural end of eating. Though eating too much carries sequences.

With the exception of decaf coffee, what you listed is either part of our dominion over the plants and creatures of the earth or attempting to treat the consequences of our imperfect nature.

Because the marital embrace isn’t just about a bodily function. All of the teachings of the Church regarding children, contraception, etc. are in the context of marriage. The natural end of sexual relations is procreative - not because of the process but because of the family unit created by the marriage.

 

[Gliggle]

I agree with you, I think its the same thing, although perhaps not as grave.

Think of it this way, if we conformed more closely to what God wanted us to be before original sin set in and messed everything up… we would not need artificial sweetener, because there would be no such thing as lack of self control. However it exists, so hence, sweetener exists. I think it’s disordered. Not to discourage those who make use of such products, the marital act and a spoonful of sugar are very different things - to divert one you may potentially prohibit God from creating a new life under circumstances which he normally might, in the other you prevent a few calories landing on the hips… I think if you truly find you have no other option but to use artificial sweeteners, its okay, but its good to ask the questions if you are being overindulgent and maybe God would prefer you to deny yourself something rather than indulge? It may be sweetener does not add to the burden in our bodies but in some people maybe it does add to the burden in their souls. Mybe theres a reason we can only eat so many sweet things before we start putting on weight, God after all wants us to master control of our bodies.

“Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; 20 you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body,” (1 Cor. 6:19-20).

I may be wrong and there could be another angle on this, but I think it’s wrong to dismiss this question, and there is more to such things than meets the eye! Our society accepts things like this so readily!

 

[HerCrazierHalf]

And this question was really just something that’s been floating through my mind after all of the previous abc discussions. Obviously, I doubt anyone see this as a true issue, but three same logic fits rather well.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

Is the consumption of diet foods such as artificial sweeteners, Olestra, etc immoral or at the least “disordered”? An odd question, but seems appropriate.

As has been presented here regarding abc, altering the parties or materials of a natural act to avoid the natural outcome is disordered. I’m not distorting teachings on abc, but wouldn’t the logic mean that diet foods are also disordered?

In this case I do not mean portion control or using less sugar. I mean the use of artificial sweeteners and such designed to taste and be consumed like their real counterparts while trying to avoid their natural ends. I suppose this could be extended to supplements or drugs that interfere with the absorption of fats.

Thoughts?

Why would you think having food made in such a way that you can avoid many of the side effects of indulging in tasty food is a bad thing? Do you also think it is a sin to eat food then vomit so you can engage in the pleasure of eating again?

Not a moral problem. Going down this line of thought (altering materials of a natural act) can bring you to some dark and distorted places: hybridizing food? Anesthesia in childbirth? Removal of diseased organs? Spraying week killer? Decaffienated coffee? All of these things alter natural materials or processes that otherwise would proceed down their own path dictated by “nature,” and none is a moral problem.

Decaffeinated coffee is an unnatural abomination that should be killed with fire.

 

[fisherman_carl]

It is not the fact that something is artificial that makes something immoral. If that were the case then we should all stop driving cars and walk everywhere, because driving a car keeps us from the natural end of using our legs.

It would be only immoral if it were somehow harmful for you. If the artificial sweetener for instance turned out to give you cancer or something like that. Like the cigarette which turned out to do just that.

Man has always been manipulating his environment artificially in order to gain some advantage over it. Sometimes it works and other times not so much.

 

[fisherman_carl]

Then how does this differ from the prohibition on altering the martial embrace? Allowing the natural ends of a process or act to occur seems to be an overwhelming factor in determining morality. The possibility of pregnancy (no matter how remote) is a natural end. So too is providing ones body with sustenance a natural end of eating. Though eating too much carries sequences.

With the exception of decaf coffee, what you listed is either part of our dominion over the plants and creatures of the earth or attempting to treat the consequences of our imperfect nature.

The natural end of eating is nutrition for the body. Using an artificial sweetener does not prohibit this end. However, using an artificial contraception does try to prohibit the natural end of sex. Although it doesn’t always work.

If the food that you were eating was broken glass then yes it would be immoral and would prohibit the natural end of nutrition. But, adding some sweetener to a glass of water does not prohibit nutrition, but actually encourages it. It would be like in the act of love making you put on some music to set the scene. The music may actually help to bring about the sexual union. Just like the sweetener helps to bring about the eating of the food.