You’re correct, I just want to emphasize that “not raw-dogging it” is bad because it deprives the individual of the self-discipline training. You’d think it would be a blanket Good Thing (tm) to have more people “survive” in general, but in reality, in the long term, it’s actually worse to increase the number of people on the planet that have to rely on chemical assistance to control their impulses
Im actually advocating more of a pragmatism take on the situation by saying that we’re all worse off having so many more people with uncontrollable impulses. And I really didn’t even touch on the implications of divorcing actions from consequences.
Granted, this is a false dichotomy on a large enough time scale, unless you define morality as some specific set of beliefs rather than the more abstract “doing the right thing”
I am of course criticizing the ignorant application of morality in general, but ironically truly utilitarian morality and pragmatism happen to coincide in this case
And honestly I'm not even judging ozempic users, as an ex-obese. Weight loss is extremely hard and was extremely painful to me. People who never went through a real weight loss journey (from obese to not) shouldn't judge either. But please judge the HAES movement.
Lo, how softe the human body has grown! If only 'twere for more self-discipline, my feet could develop the natural toughness to endure Nature's harsh grip!