Is it Moral to have a Really Big Lunch? (*Extra Credit 1*)

Is it moral to have a really big lunch? By big, I mean really big- like a thirty-seven-course lunch and thirteen wines. No matter your initial reaction, the answer is not as obvious as you think. 

In The New Yorker, Jim Harrison's article "Annals of Eating A Really Big Lunch" argues that over-consuming massive amounts of food might not be as horrible as society assumes.   

Harrison recounts- on many occasions- his lavish gluttony, including times when he was not even hungry. This is okay, he argues, because life is far too short to not indulge in the most luxurious aspects of life. He says it best: "Like sex, bathing, sleeping, and drinking, the effects of food don't last. The patterns are repeated but finite. Life is a near-death experience, and our devious minds will do anything to make it interesting."

I would like to counter this with the perspective of farmers like Kurt Timmermeister and Andrea Crawford. They prefer to live, consume, and produce simply and healthfully. They are conscious of the effects they are having on their communities, consumers, and environment.

Even though life is as short as Harrison describes, the lives of the next generation are equally as important. They are as worthy of living in a healthy society as the current generation. If everyone took Harrison's advice at face value then resources would quickly disappear. Applying risk-analysis may help those with Harrison's mindset think about the effects of their actions on others (or at least limit their chances of food-related health complications).

In small doses, Harrison's perspective can be good for the soul. Indulgence, as he states, can be great for the soul and downright fun. But living with this mindset can have some miserable consequences, internally and sociologically.