Is it Unethical to Live an Inauthentic life?

I like the "navel-gazing" tag. I love that expression and no one ever uses it anymore. Made me laugh. It also made me laugh to read thirty-five and midlife crises in the same sentence. (While it may quite literally be the middle of your life, most people don't talk about having a "midlife crisis" until 45-50, so you're ahead of the game. I think most women experience it more as they reach menopause or when old age is actually imminent. But heck, maybe you'll figure it out before your peers, too!) What didn't make me laugh, but actually made me a little angry was your use of the word inauthentic. While I agree that one's values and the way one leads his life obviously do not always coincide and should more often, I don't believe that means one is leading an "inauthentic life." I understand, of course, that some existentialist thinkers believe that a man is responsible for his actions and is defined by his actions (which are based on his values), but that makes me think more about responsibility than anything else. Are we not all somehow responsible for being kind to those around us? For putting the feelings of others before our own? Is it not the stop one makes to see if a woman crying in the street needs help that makes one a kind person? Because I don't think worrying about oneself makes one very kind at all. It's all well and good to think about ourselves first (and we must in the case of needs--water, food, etc.), but it seems awfully selfish to put our wants ahead of everyone else's. I don't think it is inauthentic to take into account the wants of our children, our wives/husbands, our animals, our friends, our families and make choices that make both ourselves and them happy. Is compromise inauthentic? Of course, turning off the television for a few hours a day, isn't hurting anyone (in fact it's probably helping everyone AND the environment), and but I actually think the whole idea these days of putting our own wants before those of anyone else is counterintuitive (and that's where you know I'm not an existentialist.) What about compromise? That's not to say that I don't struggle with this sort of things, too. For me I often feel tired of pretending to be happy when I'm not. Recently I gave in to feeling sad and letting my friends in on it, but it hasn't helped. I feel better when I "act as if" I am happy than I do when I am authentic about my feelings of sadness.

If you think about it, one of the reasons that we do not "do unto others" as we should is because we are judging them in some way as not worthy of our attention and/or because we feel jealous of them. This is why, I think, we are cautioned to love each other as we love ourselves: we really do need to love ourselves first; more particularly, we need to recognize that we, imperfect as we necessarily are, are worthy of love. Ironically, it is only from this confidence--that God loves us even though we rarely, if ever, live up to even our own ideals--that we are freed to love others as we should, not as rivals for love, but as sharers in love. Not taking proper care of ourselves is a sign that we do not love ourselves enough, for if we did, as you say, how could we possibly treat ourselves the way we so often do?

Gimme a break. It's bad enough that I never hear words like "sin," "vice," and "virtue" in any context other than diet or exercise, and that fitness seems to be the top item in most people's New Year resolutions. But linking them to the "authenticity" of one's life? Enough already.

I think Marian may be making a much larger point--or at least that's what I derived from it--that is we've put too much emphasis in our society on diet and exercise (mostly for women) and use inappropriate language to shame people for their decisions in this regard. And, while I agree with Terri that there is nothing wrong with thinking of your body as temple and therefore treating it well, I don't quite think that was Marian's point. We--many women but not all--don't treat our bodies as temples so much as we torture them to be skinny. And skinny doesn't always equal healthy. The diet industry, and others that stand to make a fortune on our collective low self-esteem, use pretty heavy-duty language to get us to buy into their myths--sin and vice being two of them. (Virtuous being used to describe those who forbid themselves entirely of the things that give them pleasure.) This may be true when you're talking about really damaging things, but to consider one who indulges in too much chocolate from time to time as a less than virtuous person based on that...Well..That's silly. Everything in moderation! Treating our bodies as temples doesn't have to mean only ONE outcome. If you are naturally skinny, but you eat properly and indulge yourself with treats from time to time, great. As long as you're happy and healthy! But it shouldn't be assumed that an overweight person is gluttonous or slothful. He/she may be very healthy in terms of the food he/she chooses and keeping up a high activity level. He/she may have better blood pressure or cholesterol than the model next door. It's practically society's last insult that isn't taboo. And, ss it really inauthentic to just not worry about every bite you take and whether or not you did 30 minutes of exercise? And is it unethical if you don't? This is, like the post about abortion, a complex issue, and probably one we can only judge from person to person. Believe it or not, some people may be fat AND healthy AND (get this) HAPPY and that may be authentic. This part of the discussion has certainly made me rethink the original post and the points Hillary was making, which had less to do wit what I'm talking about now and more about making in choices in ALL aspects life that make one happy and therefore able to bring others closer to happiness, too. Always put your own oxygen mask on before helping others with theirs.