Can you justify competitive eating?

[CWBetts]

If you tell me you absolutely never overeated in your life time, theres noway I can take your seriously. It’s not moral reletivism. Example the ten commandments says thou shal nat kill, guess what if someone is coming at you with a knife and you shoot them dead, you are not sinning. If you are playing softball and you hit the ball off the pitcher’s head and it kills him you are not getting arrested for murder and neither is the church condemning you despite the fact that happened during a FUN activity. If eating contests are soooo evil where is your condemnation of smoking!

I do condemn smoking. And excessive drinking. It is moral relativism. You are taking something that is clearly a vice, and extolling it as a virtue. If someone comes at you with knife and you shoot them dead, you are sinning if it is your intent to kill. Every act has three components: End, the act itself, and circumstances. If any one of them are a moral wrong, the whole action is a moral wrong. In your being attacked by a knife wielding assailant:
End: To kill your attacker (evil)
Action: Defend yourself (good)
Circumstances: being attacked with deadly force (good)
Verdict: If your intent is to kill your attacker, it is a moral wrong. There are many ways to defend yourself without resorting to murder.

Now on to softball:
End: To hit a home run (neutral)
Action: You hit the softball (Neutral)
Circumstances: someone gets hit, and dies in a freak accident (neutral)
Verdict: Since the intent was not to kill, but to hit a home run, and the batter did nothing to encourage the death, there is no moral wrong

Eating contest:
End: To make a pig out of yourself (Evil-sin of gluttony)
Action: Eating (neutral)
Circumstances: part of a contest (neutral, or even good. There is nothing wrong with competition)
Verdict: Morally wrong. Your intent is to exercise gluttony, or if you prefer, a sin of omission, the lack of temperance.

See how this works? If I were you I would think real hard before you criticize this method of evaluating the morality of an action.

 

[aspawloski4th]

I do condemn smoking. And excessive drinking. It is moral relativism. You are taking something that is clearly a vice, and extolling it as a virtue. If someone comes at you with knife and you shoot them dead, you are sinning if it is your intent to kill. Every act has three components: End, the act itself, and circumstances. If any one of them are a moral wrong, the whole action is a moral wrong. In your being attacked by a knife wielding assailant:
End: To kill your attacker (evil)
Action: Defend yourself (good)
Circumstances: being attacked with deadly force (good)
Verdict: If your intent is to kill your attacker, it is a moral wrong. There are many ways to defend yourself without resorting to murder.

Now on to softball:
End: To hit a home run (neutral)
Action: You hit the softball (Neutral)
Circumstances: someone gets hit, and dies in a freak accident (neutral)
Verdict: Since the intent was not to kill, but to hit a home run, and the batter did nothing to encourage the death, there is no moral wrong

Eating contest:
End: To make a pig out of yourself (Evil-sin of gluttony)
Action: Eating (neutral)
Circumstances: part of a contest (neutral, or even good. There is nothing wrong with competition)
Verdict: Morally wrong. Your intent is to exercise gluttony, or if you prefer, a sin of omission, the lack of temperance.

See how this works? If I were you I would think real hard before you criticize this method of evaluating the morality of an action.

Eating contest. End. to win < to eat the most of the participants. - neutral.
I very rarely ever say this about others, but… I think some people here have too much time on thier hands. If we were debating this 30, 40 50 years ago, people with your mind set would either be ecnored or laughed out of town. Get me a time machine please!

 

[CWBetts]

Eating contest. End. to win < to eat the most of the participants. - neutral.
I very rarely ever say this about others, but… I think some people here have too much time on thier hands. If we were debating this 30, 40 50 years ago, people with your mind set would either be ecnored or laughed out of town. Get me a time machine please!

“to eat more that everyone else” that is at the very least a lack of temperance. Of course if you dislike my method, you can take it up with someone more intelligent than either one of us.

 

[aspawloski4th]

“to eat more that everyone else” that is at the very least a lack of temperance. Of course if you dislike my method, you can take it up with someone more intelligent than either one of us.

By the way, that would of been laughed out of town by lay people as well as many religous. Oh by the way. How do I know? I’m older than you son.

 

[CWBetts]

By the way, that would of been laughed out of town by lay people as well as many religous. Oh by the way. How do I know? I’m older than you son.

Age does not always translate to wisdom. Take my advice. Study up on Moral Theology. You’d be better for it. If I would have been derided, so what? Many have suffered more for the sake of Truth.

 

[aspawloski4th]

Age does not always translate to wisdom. Take my advice. Study up on Moral Theology. You’d be better for it. If I would have been derided, so what? Many have suffered more for the sake of Truth.

Well remember, while there has been no perfectly moral time in history, I’m talking about a time that is moral and ethical than the present. I sugest you don’t try and debunk me on that ether, because I can drag out example till the cows come home and then some and a bit more. Remember I lived during some of the time I’m speaking about. You are picking a very tiny issue to make a big deal of. There are muck larger fish to fry or far greater importance, like murder of the unborn children for example. I happen to have only eaten in one eating contest in my life, and I didn’t eat myself sick either doing it. You’d likely find most of what I consider to be fun and relaxing to be neutral on the more spectrum, and if you have anything naormal about you to your age you’d likely find my pleasures boring. I likely will not be in an eating contest again, for it’s not my thing, but I don’t begrudge someone who has a little fun once in a while doing that. On this rainy cold dreary day, if I get to pet my little mischievious cat I’ll be plenty content in the pleasure department. I sugest you lighten up, and for some perspective on recent history, I sugest you watch few tv shows from the golden era like, Ozzie and Harriet, Leave it to Beaver, Bonanza, maybe if you can find it an epesode or two of the old 1960’s Batman show. While these are entertainement they do reflect the values of their time. Remeber being a good person does help one get to Heaven, being a goodie 2 shoes doesn’t.

 

[maryjk]

If any one of them are a moral wrong, the whole action is a moral wrong. In your being attacked by a knife wielding assailant:
End: To kill your attacker (evil)
Action: Defend yourself (good)
Circumstances: being attacked with deadly force (good)
Verdict: If your intent is to kill your attacker, it is a moral wrong. There are many ways to defend yourself without resorting to murder.

Wow!!
So, if someone is coming at me, with a knife and I shoot him, knowing that if I don’t kill him there is a chance he will continue to try to kill me. I shoot him, intending to kill him so he doesn’t kill me.

That is murder? And a sin? Wow.

And how about football. Professional football or for that matter any professional “sport.” How much money is wasted? How much of that money wasted could be used to feed the poor? How much food could that buy?

I guess you don’t watch any professional sport, because what a waste of money. And like jmcrae you give ALL of your excess pay to the poor. And like jmcrae you don’t have air conditioning, a car or any extras until all the people in the world also have those. ( I am guessing that jmcrae doesn’t really do this. He sponsors one child, through one agency.)

 

[CWBetts]

Wow!!
So, if someone is coming at me, with a knife and I shoot him, knowing that if I don’t kill him there is a chance he will continue to try to kill me. I shoot him, intending to kill him so he doesn’t kill me.

That is murder? And a sin? Wow.

And how about football. Professional football or for that matter any professional “sport.” How much money is wasted? How much of that money wasted could be used to feed the poor? How much food could that buy?

I guess you don’t watch any professional sport, because what a waste of money. And like jmcrae you give ALL of your excess pay to the poor. And like jmcrae you don’t have air conditioning, a car or any extras until all the people in the world also have those. ( I am guessing that jmcrae doesn’t really do this. He sponsors one child, through one agency.)

This model of determining toe good or evil of an action was proposed by St. Thomas Aquinas. Note in my example is that if your intent is to specifically to kill him, it makes it an evil action. If your intent is to disable, but you kill him accidentally, then you are not culpable. What in the heck did the sport thing come from?

 

[CWBetts]

Well remember, while there has been no perfectly moral time in history, I’m talking about a time that is moral and ethical than the present. I sugest you don’t try and debunk me on that ether, because I can drag out example till the cows come home and then some and a bit more. Remember I lived during some of the time I’m speaking about. You are picking a very tiny issue to make a big deal of. There are muck larger fish to fry or far greater importance, like murder of the unborn children for example. I happen to have only eaten in one eating contest in my life, and I didn’t eat myself sick either doing it. You’d likely find most of what I consider to be fun and relaxing to be neutral on the more spectrum, and if you have anything naormal about you to your age you’d likely find my pleasures boring. I likely will not be in an eating contest again, for it’s not my thing, but I don’t begrudge someone who has a little fun once in a while doing that. On this rainy cold dreary day, if I get to pet my little mischievious cat I’ll be plenty content in the pleasure department. I sugest you lighten up, and for some perspective on recent history, I sugest you watch few tv shows from the golden era like, Ozzie and Harriet, Leave it to Beaver, Bonanza, maybe if you can find it an epesode or two of the old 1960’s Batman show. While these are entertainement they do reflect the values of their time. Remeber being a good person does help one get to Heaven, being a goodie 2 shoes doesn’t.

I am done with you. You love your life according to what the world deems acceptable and do little more than give your creator lip service. We are called to be an example of righteousness. We are in the world, yes, but we are not of the world. By the example of our lives, people should be able to tell that we are Catholic. We should all strive to be canonizable saints. I wonder how many “eating contests” St. Maximilian Kolbe participated in?

 

[aspawloski4th]

I am done with you. You love your life according to what the world deems acceptable and do little more than give your creator lip service. We are called to be an example of righteousness. We are in the world, yes, but we are not of the world. By the example of our lives, people should be able to tell that we are Catholic. We should all strive to be canonizable saints. I wonder how many “eating contests” St. Maximilian Kolbe participated in?

I’d be willing to wager if I was the betting type that a few Bavarian saint of old have if they ever attened the genuine Oktober fest. My wife who is a fairly relious lady remeinded me of that, and thinks in inturn you are condemoning many Bavarians to ever attened that event to Hell, possbibly even the current Pope who is from right in the heart of Bavaria. Even though I never talked about it on my jobs my being Catholic is possibly a factor of being let go from 2 of my past jobs. So people can tell I’m Catholic. Get the plank out of your eye before you get the spek out of someone else’s eye son.

 

[maryjk]

This model of determining toe good or evil of an action was proposed by St. Thomas Aquinas. Note in my example is that if your intent is to specifically to kill him, it makes it an evil action. If your intent is to disable, but you kill him accidentally, then you are not culpable. What in the heck did the sport thing come from?

I was addressing more than one post and should have quoted it, but didn’t. Sorry.

My intent is to kill him. If I know he will kill me and I know that the only way for me to live is to kill him, that means that I need to kill him.

In addition, how many people can shoot well enough to shoot to wound? Shooting the knife out of someone’s hand isn’t something a normal person, under stress can do. Anyone with any training is taught to aim for center body mass. Guess what, that is right where the heart is. Someone gets a bullet in the heart, chances are they are dead.

 

[CWBetts]

I was addressing more than one post and should have quoted it, but didn’t. Sorry.

My intent is to kill him. If I know he will kill me and I know that the only way for me to live is to kill him, that means that I need to kill him.

In addition, how many people can shoot well enough to shoot to wound? Shooting the knife out of someone’s hand isn’t something a normal person, under stress can do. Anyone with any training is taught to aim for center body mass. Guess what, that is right where the heart is. Someone gets a bullet in the heart, chances are they are dead.

If the intent is to kill, then it is an immoral act. As I pointed out before if the circumstances, the act itself, or the end are immoral, then the action is immoral.

 

[philialeaf]

Wow! I asked for opinions, I got 'em! This discussion has taken many turns, and many of you have brought up good points. I have to say I’m disappointed at some of the mean-spiritedness, but not surprised. We have a tendency to attack each other when we disagree or don’t understand each other sometimes. (By we I think I mean human beings.)
Thank you to everyone who keeps the discussion light hearted and respectful. I never meant to personally judge anyone or invite anyone else to do so. I still hold fast to my original opinion that large scale eating contests aren’t justifiable. They are probably more pride than gluttony but sin is sin. But after all, we are not here to judge each other but learn from and help each other!!
I was a little surprised that no one had brought up the Roman vomitorium, another example of excess and abuse of food and the body. (But there are so many!) I’ve seen/read/heard it compared to contraception because it separates the pleasure part of a natural act from the life-affirming or survival part. The opposite extreme is also sinful. So in vitro fertilization separates the enjoyable part (as well as the unitive and sacramental) of the reproductive act from the procreative. Eating like a Jansenist, just to survive and heaven forbid it be enjoyable, may be something along those lines. (And eating a normal quantity gives you time to enjoy and savor the food!)
Modern large scale eating competitions seem to me to be more about achieving fame and winning prize money than about the eating itself. That’s why I think it may be more about pride. (But again, we’re not the judges, and I have no idea what goes on in these people’s minds!)
I would like to learn more about what the church says about “abuse of food” if anything. If not the Church per se then maybe some saints, Church Doctors, etc.
I wonder how many of the people who participate in huge eating contests say grace beforehand? Do they consider where it comes from, the work involved, and can they be proud of themselves for their “work” when they think about this?
I don’t think this is a trivial topic, if Christ himself is willing to come to us in the form of food which earth has given and human hands have made, food matters and has meaning. How we treat our bodies matters. If you don’t think it matters why are you still here?
Nowhere in this thread have I seen anyone attacked outright for eating 12 mini burgers, though one poster made the good point that a person’s reason for doing something affects the morality of it. Was it because you needed more food that day, or to gain recognition? That was a good point!
Above all I think we all need to step back and remember we don’t have all the answers, but need to continue to prayerfully seek truth, educate ourselves, and listen respectfully to one another (not to the point of relativism, but we certainly have minds to use!)
Thanks again for your thoughts!

 

[jmcrae]

If we were debating this 30, 40 50 years ago, people with your mind set would either be ecnored or laughed out of town. Get me a time machine please!

30, 40, 50 years ago, there would have been no debate - the answer was clear. Eating contests were considered a public display of gluttony, and the participants were viewed as low-class exhibitionists.

If they were Catholic, then first the nun would have beaten them with a ruler, then taken them to Confession, and then the priest would have given them a penance to fast from all but water for three days, for participating in a public display of gluttony. Things were a little stricter back then in the Catholic Church, and the sin of gluttony was not softened up with words like “eating disorder” etc.

 

[aspawloski4th]

30, 40, 50 years ago, there would have been no debate - the answer was clear. Eating contests were considered a public display of gluttony, and the participants were viewed as low-class exhibitionists.

If they were Catholic, then first the nun would have beaten them with a ruler, then taken them to Confession, and then the priest would have given them a penance to fast from all but water for three days, for participating in a public display of gluttony. Things were a little stricter back then in the Catholic Church, and the sin of gluttony was not softened up with words like “eating disorder” etc.

You and I are in a different world. I remeber them very vividly and clearly growing up, in the 70’s, and noone waswining and sniveling about them back then. Bonanza a good family tv shouw back in the 60’s hadd an epesode named Flapjack Eating contest. That is one of my mother’s favorite epesodes, because it;'s one of the hokey epesodes. Back in those days along with being more strict, people knew better how to separate a one time event from a pattern. Something I see people don’t know the difference between in this thread.

 

[JoeJetson]

Modern large scale eating competitions seem to me to be more about achieving fame and winning prize money than about the eating itself. That’s why I think it may be more about pride. (But again, we’re not the judges, and I have no idea what goes on in these people’s minds!

Good point. I was only thinking about the gluttony part.

 

[CWBetts]

You and I are in a different world. I remeber them very vividly and clearly growing up, in the 70’s, and noone waswining and sniveling about them back then. Bonanza a good family tv shouw back in the 60’s hadd an epesode named Flapjack Eating contest. That is one of my mother’s favorite epesodes, because it;'s one of the hokey epesodes. Back in those days along with being more strict, people knew better how to separate a one time event from a pattern. Something I see people don’t know the difference between in this thread.

The 70’s was no decade to hold up as an example of restraint. We had hyper-liberal bishops complaining about Humana Vitae, we had rampant drug abuse, we had liturgical dance! Something does not have to be a pattern to be sinful. Viewing pornography just once is a sin. Likewise, over stuffing yourself, whether it be from gluttony or pride is still a sin.

 

[aspawloski4th]

The 70’s was no decade to hold up as an example of restraint. We had hyper-liberal bishops complaining about Humana Vitae, we had rampant drug abuse, we had liturgical dance! Something does not have to be a pattern to be sinful. Viewing pornography just once is a sin. Likewise, over stuffing yourself, whether it be from gluttony or pride is still a sin.

I lived in the 1970’s and you didn’t so don’t question me. The 1970s compared to the 1950’s is liberal, the 1970’s compared to now is tons more moral than now. Back then children were discleplined now they are not. Back then with Mass every parish the music was from an organ as it should be and every mass was the same, now it’s become a concert, and many priests have thrown out numerous rubrics. Back then if a child was causing trouble in the neighborhood it’s parents would back up the neighbors in stopping the trouble causing, now its my child can do what he wants and if you touch him I’ll sue you. Back then most people knew their neighbors, now the nieghborhood is full of strangers. Back then when kids got home from school they may have ewatched a little tv on a rainy day, but they mostly played out doors with nirghbor kids, now you stay indoors because you cant trust the nighbor kids. Back then the parents rues the home, now the kids rule the home. Back then mom was home to greet the kids after school and be preparing dinner when dad got home, now dad works 2nd shift mom works swing shift, and kids eat microwave dinners in front of the tv. Catholic schools are closing faster than I can count. The 1970’s was not perfect, no decade is, but I’ll take the 70’s over now any day!

 

[CWBetts]

I lived in the 1970’s and you didn’t so don’t question me. The 1970s compared to the 1950’s is liberal, the 1970’s compared to now is tons more moral than now. Back then children were discleplined now they are not. Back then with Mass every parish the music was from an organ as it should be and every mass was the same, now it’s become a concert, and many priests have thrown out numerous rubrics. Back then if a child was causing trouble in the neighborhood it’s parents would back up the neighbors in stopping the trouble causing, now its my child can do what he wants and if you touch him I’ll sue you. Back then most people knew their neighbors, now the nieghborhood is full of strangers. Back then when kids got home from school they may have ewatched a little tv on a rainy day, but they mostly played out doors with nirghbor kids, now you stay indoors because you cant trust the nighbor kids. Back then the parents rues the home, now the kids rule the home. Back then mom was home to greet the kids after school and be preparing dinner when dad got home, now dad works 2nd shift mom works swing shift, and kids eat microwave dinners in front of the tv. Catholic schools are closing faster than I can count. The 1970’s was not perfect, no decade is, but I’ll take the 70’s over now any day!

Yawn. Someone else living in the nostalgia of a time that never was. REmember the good, forget the bad…

 

[aspawloski4th]

Yawn. Someone else living in the nostalgia of a time that never was. REmember the good, forget the bad…

You are a whipper snapper. Wait 20 years and you will know that you don’t know it all. I think I need not go into atistic people being locked up and the energy crisis. I you want a perfect , it doesn’t exist, and will not come till Christ’s second coming. Some time are betterthan others and sometimes are worse than others. In our culture as far as cultural concerns go we are worse than any time during the 20th century. I affirm that, my parents affirm that, my grandparents affirm that.