The Colbert Report "being weighed for airplane tickets"

[BlueChicken]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

Some people eat too much and have unhealthy lifestyles, others suffer from medical conditions.

There is no medical condition that makes one obese. There are certain genetic disorders that manifest in thyroid or digestional issues making it more difficult for a person to maintain what would be considered a 'normal weight'.

This however does not offset the evidence that obesity is linked to a combination of a higher calorie diet and a sedentary lifestyle (http://www.nber.org/digest/nov07/w12954.html) is more influencial in obesity rates than other factors, including those medical conditions. Those factors within an individual's control are at the helm for the majority of overweight individuals; it is the choice to maintain an excessive body weight that airlines are penalizing.

If you want to argue a seperate line of reasoning for those who cannot control their body weight to any significant degree, you would have my support.

So companies should be able to discriminate on race, or gender, or anything else they please? If a company has no obligation to serve everyone, this is the result - a justification for segregation based on race or any other factor.

Any factor under the control of the individual patron that influences the technical operation of their buisiness: yes, The same way they can 'discriminate' against those with a criminal record or those intoxicated.

I am not saying they should discriminate people based on something out of their control, such as race or gender. I would not say that race is something a person can change, their weight is. People are not being discriminated for conditions out of their control, but for the choices they make which interferes with the airline.

"The company's interests are not to remain humane, and if they are that exists alongside their bottom line rather than exceeding it."

The company's financial interests are opposed to being humane, that's true, but isn't that just a moral indictment of the company in question? Doesn't seem like a justification to say 'oh, but the company shouldn't be moral'.

If the company does have a responsibility to be humane, but also should be allowed to discriminate based on weight, then the bottom line has trumped humanity. That's a shame.

It isn't a case of being inhumane or immoral. The person flying is not obligated to fly, and when flying the company is not mistreating them in any way. They are simply required to pay for the additional resources their presence requires.

The ticket cost they purchase allots them a seat with a certain amount of space and a certain amount of weight which they are allowed to occupy. What you are suggesting is that it is inhumane to require them to pay extra when they exceed either (or both) of those conditions.

And the problem here is that the bottom line is taken to be more important than humanity. If it all comes down to money, then compassion is out the window. Personally, I think compassion is more valuable than 'one dollar more'.

In the case of airlines the fight is not for another dollar to line investor's pockets, but often cost-saving measures are enacted to keep these limping industies alive. Airlines are notorious for being sinks of capital, rather than huge money-makers (http://www.johnkay.com/industries/409). Your argument is predicated on the fact that airlines are looking for an easy dollar and 'screwing over the fat man' is an easy out. Rather, the extreme limits placed on weight to get the most out of fuel is enacted so airlines can stay in buisiness: overweight people are not descriminated because they are overweight and that is it, but they are required to pay for what they put on the plane.

Humanity has not been sacrificed here: what has been enacted is the requirement that people pay for what they ship. A smaller person uses less space and weighs less (using less fuel) and so they pay less than a larger person who weighs more. Size 18 shoes cost more because of the extra material, labour and shipping that goes into them and it is not descrimination to the large of feet. The more labour/resources that goes into something, the higher the cost: not a case of humanity or inhumanity, but of the necessity of charging more for those who get more.

[Khethil]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

And the problem here is that the bottom line is taken to be more important than humanity. If it all comes down to money, then compassion is out the window. Personally, I think compassion is more valuable than 'one dollar more'. Maybe I'm crazy.

I understand; however, to say "you should pay for what you receive" is not all-encompassing and isn't meant as a value judgment on every aspect of human interaction everywhere. It's a statement of the transaction itself - nothing more. This hasn't anything to do with judging folks.

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

Depends - did you cause the wreck? If so, then this is your fault. Discriminating against someone based on weight, and "discriminating" someone based on their actions are two very different situations.

Not for the purposes of my example. In both cases, conditions specific to me perpetuate a situation where the patron (insurance co. or airline co.) must spend - or potentially spend - more due to individual case-circumstances. Perhaps this was a bad example, I was hoping to illustrate this point better.

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

... especially when we consider the morbidly obese, people who are obese due to some medical condition over which they have little or no control.

And yes; you're right to say we shouldn't treat differently those who have no choice in that condition that has caused whatever differential. For the ethics of person-to-person contact I readily agree wholeheartedly. The point I'm hoping to make here is that I believe there are business transactions that - without regard to any moral judgment - do sometimes necessitate more resource expenditure and therefore, warrant a higher charge. There is the way things are and the way I think they should be. My point, if there is one of worth to the reader, is to the former.

On the other hand, I fear that what lies at the basis of issues like this are people's perceptions. When someone sees a fat person, generally there's an instant judgment in the looker's eyes; they assume that someone's lazy, slovenly or hedonistic. Heck, my own family has chronic obesity run amuck (my sister and I were spared, for some reason), so I've seen the negative effects that can be wrought - as well as the damage they do. The effects of this kind of judgmentalism ripple out; souring the sense of self worth and embittering an otherwise happy heart.

In any case... you're definitely right on that separation between morals and economics. These two aspects of our daily lives shouldn't be so separate - and I wish they weren't.

Thanks

[Didymos Thomas]

Maybe I'm the only one who thinks it might be embarrassing and hurtful for an overweight person, standing in line for the ticket counter, to be asked to pay double what everyone else is paying.

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by BlueChicken

There is no medical condition that makes one obese.

Incorrect. Obesity in and of itself is a medical condition with a very strong genetic basis. While you are correct that it can be controlled with diet and exercise, you would be completely incorrect to state that there are no intrinsic (i.e. non-lifestyle) factors that determine an individual's particular risk.

Furthermore, people with obesity suffer from much higher rates of low back pain and arthritis, which greatly impairs their ability to exercise.

Finally, the majority of obese people are already overweight as toddlers and young children, long before it's their fault.



That said, I am a frequent air traveller and the issue of weight is paramount for airlines. During bad weather flights will often lower the number of passengers (they force people onto different flights) so that they can carry more fuel. And there are some people who are just too large for a single coach airline seat -- so they either should not be allowed in that seat, they should be compelled to buy a larger seat in first class, or they should be compelled to buy two seats.

I do not think they should be charged for weight alone -- that doesn't seem fair. But if they need to put one cheek on seat 11A and one cheek on seat 11B, then they should buy both seats.

[Didymos Thomas]

Originally Posted by Aedes

That said, I am a frequent air traveller and the issue of weight is paramount for airlines. During bad weather flights will often lower the number of passengers (they force people onto different flights) so that they can carry more fuel. And there are some people who are just too large for a single coach airline seat -- so they either should not be allowed in that seat, they should be compelled to buy a larger seat in first class, or they should be compelled to buy two seats.

Why?
Why should overweight people be subjected to the possible embarrassment and hurt that would result in them being charged extra for the same service (transportation from point A to point B)?
I understand that airlines must be concerned about the weight of a plane - but why must this attention require the airlines to embarrass a segment of the population?

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

Why?
Why should overweight people be subjected to the possible embarrassment and hurt that would result in them being charged extra for the same service (transportation from point A to point B)?

If you have to buy two seats, then you have to pay for them. We've had to buy an extra seat for our son ever since he flew for the first time at 2 months old (it's safer for him to be in a car seat in his own seat on the plane). If someone will not fit in one seat, then buying only one seat is not an option. There is nothing wrong with someone buying the seat next to them so that they have more room; and if you have to in order to fit safely on the plane, then I don't see what the alternative is. There are people who literally won't fit in a coach seat, or who fit so tightly that they 1) completely encroach on the next seat and/or 2) cannot be safely accomodated by a single seat's safety belt. Do you think that the airplane should give away the next seat for free instead of recouping hundreds of dollars?

I understand that airlines must be concerned about the weight of a plane - but why must this attention require the airlines to embarrass a segment of the population?

Is that any more embarrassing than their condition is to begin with? It's not like the airlines somehow openly set people apart. You buy your ticket privately.

[Khethil]

I get the feeling we're going round and round on this one. I think DT summed up the problem here:

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

Maybe I'm the only one who thinks it might be embarrassing and hurtful for an overweight person, standing in line for the ticket counter, to be asked to pay double what everyone else is paying.

It would be and is embarrassing and hurtful to be in that situation.

In this world of "Pay For It" and "Get It" - let's call it a Fee For Service (FFS) - there isn't any morality, there's no justice and there's no compassion. Various economic transactions and transactions in this FFS world humiliate, hurt and degrade us in many ways. I once watched in horror as a secretary of ours was fired for being late to work - she came in and bled her seat red, having just had a miscarraige (an inexcusable reason in the Business's eyes for being absent). This is the economic world we live in, and it sucks royally. It needs to be changed, it *must* be changed.

This "reductionism" and humiliation, due to financial considerations, goes deep. It permeates every aspect of human life (at least where I live). Probably the most touted - and most dire - aspect of it is where in the U.S. one must pay money in order to live (i.e., Healhcare for Profit System). But it's much deeper than that; living conditions, education, transportation, food distribution and yes; Airlines.

When observing the inhumanity our FFS society perpetuates, one has three options: 1) Leave - go live off the land somewhere in complete isoluation; just check out completely. 2) Accept that it's a reality while working to change it. -or- 3) Join the Dark Side; jump in and grab all the cash you can.

There is no morality, at all, in the FFS world. Unfortunately; for the time being, it is something we must live with while simultaneously grab any opportunity to change. I hope this helps (although I doubt it will) but for the time being, it's how I see the situation.

Thanks

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by Khethil

This is the economic world we live in, and it sucks royally. It needs to be changed, it *must* be changed.

Perhaps, but this is not a good example of why. Barring a more complex discussion of obesity and society, the issue is that airlines are a business that sell seats. If you need two seats, you need to pay for two. If you want two apples you pay for two apples...

[Didymos Thomas]

Originally Posted by Khethil

There is no morality, at all, in the FFS world. Unfortunately; for the time being, it is something we must live with while simultaneously grab any opportunity to change. I hope this helps (although I doubt it will) but for the time being, it's how I see the situation.

So why did you disagree with me? Have I missed something?

This message coming from Aedes about selling seats - isn't this the same mind who suggested the majority go do something uncomfortable if they are morally unjust?

[Khethil]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

So why did you disagree with me? Have I missed something?

Because this FFS system in which we live has its own rules and conditions; that you pay for what you get. I may think its crappy, demeaning, horrible and in need of change; but as things are now, and within the context of what we must deal with. Yes, they should be charged extra given the "rules of the game" (read: they charge for what they give and they decide which, how and whence)

Change the "Rules of the Game", as I think we should, and this won't be an issue. Combine this with my view that in this Cost-for-Fee world there is no morality at all and you can understand this separation I make. What is, and What Should be. Ask me if you should pay for something and my mind turns to the Business World as I know it. Change the *entire* system and we have a new "Structure" in which to answer such questions.

As a side note:

In a way, the airlines have perpetuated this controversy themselves. To illustrate this, lets look at Mr Cheese Vendor: He sells Swiss Cheese for $5.00 a LB. When DT walks in and says, "Give me two pounds of Swiss" there's no confusion as to what he wants and what he's getting. Let's turn back to the Airlines...

... is that ticket I buy per person, per pound or per seat? What I'm suggesting is that they've screwed themselves into this mess by way of Vagueness. If it has indeed been per person [*], then they've no right (by their own rules) to change the game. But the way I understand it, they haven't - and in doing so have enraged a lot of customers.

Thanks


~~~~~~~~~~~
* Which, I believe hasn't been spelled out or enunciated in any way

EDIT: Something just occurred to me; another example of this separation of morality (which, by the way I don't like but I believe necessary). I'm retired military and have a relatively-good grasp of how War is; it's necessity, needs, objectives - its own rules. Set up a certain scenario and ask, "Should those 20 people be taken out?" and I'll say "Yes" without hesitation. This isn't because I don't value life (quite the contrary, my moral set says killing is wrong), it is because the complexities of that different system; that disparate "rules of the game" in that context are such that human nature - as it is now - lead to that answer. Nothing is cut and dry, and I think most of us would agree that the answers to Ethical Questions are contingent on the situation in which their posed. One can't deny context, obviously. Thanks