Are eating disorders the result of societal pressure to be thin?

People make choices based on the structure of incentives that exists. It's a matter of probabilities. Certain societal conditions will make particular choices more or less likely. In essence, I agree with you. It comes down to *choice*, but conditions narrow or broaden the scope of choices that can be made.

Reagan is wrong but the kind of incentive structure he wants to produce is sound. If individuals believe they are accountable for their own actions and don't have others to blame for their behavior, there will be less bad behavior. On the other hand, if politicians believe that society plays role in fostering crime, then necessary reforms will not be made.

*no role

"Are eating disorders the result of societal pressure to be thin?"

Yes.

It did sound like I said that. Let me clarify-

Society puts a huge emphasis on being thin. This emphasis can drive some to developing eating disorders. Therefore, society shares guilt.

That may have been a bad example, but the point is that when society encourages us to act a certain way and then condemns that behavior, society should bear part of the responsibility.

Homo Homini Lupus

Holding a paranoid schizophrenic responsible for their action makes about as much sense as holding the weapon he used responsible. It's society's failure to recognise, and treat the sick is the real cause. Anorexia must be a little more complex than only social pressure in a society that 2/3 are over wieght. Some studies suggest that a nerochemical imbalance is also involved as in many other disorders, but that still precludes that person from being responsible for their behaviour.

"People make choices based on the structure of incentives that exists."
yes, we all follow the path of least resistance.

opinion: people have no free will, just the illusion of free will.

From this some would conclude that no-one can be fairly held accountable for their actions - to which i have to reply to the contrary. People knowing they will be held accountable for their actions will act accordingly - ie even though society is responcible for everything a person does*, a person can still understand the 'incentives' in place to 'behave' as society deems appropriate. If the tool society uses to incentivize the population is the stick for bad behaviour AND this is a successful tool then I would deem society 'good' at what it is doing.

If society is NOT successful in raising individuals (to some arbitrary standard) then the tools it is using are flawed and poorly implemented.

I don't see this as some simple case of person versus society - if the society chooses to educate the population, and the population doesn't buy into the idea that individuals should be responcible/accountable for their actions then the education policy has failed.

Individuals have also failed but we are not born with some innate sense of lawfulness or how to deal with every situation we may come across - we can only deal with that which we have learned to deal with. Society on the other hand is not born as a blank slate, society has developed and has the ability to be flexible and choose how it treats it's youngest members.

The fact that society is not particularly good at this job is not it's 'fault'. Again i don't assign any blame - just as i didn't assign blame in the individual case - society may however fail at a given (and self-appointed) task.

In the specific examples of eating disorders, i think individuals may have suffered from eating disorders for many years before they were first diagnosed, nevertheless it is only in the past 50 years the television has allowed super-models to be seenall over the world.

Is it irresponsible to allow companies portray this 'ideal' of human appearance? Perhaps, but i doubt the impact was well understood until very recent times.

Anorexia may indeed have a neurochemical component, but that may simple mean that certain under certain pressures any individual is likely to develop an unhealthy neurochemical imbalance - probably with certain genetic markers indicating those who are likely sufferers.

Ultimately how society treats or fails to treat those who don't follow the norms (be they criminal or medical. drug users or schizophrenics, religious fanatics or risk-taking banker) is a decision which society has to make by itself.

I don't claim to know what the most useful tool happens to be. I don't even claim to know what the best outcome or ideal goal should be. however IMHO there is no such thing as free-will - however that does not mean holding someone to account for their actions can't be used as a useful tool.


*well 'societal' pressures as the environmental factor, but society allows individuals be raised by their families - infact assigns children as property of their parents by default, you wouldn't question whether society was responcible in the case of adopted children...