Should Vegetarians Enter Hot Dog Eating Contests?
June 12th, 2011
Email this article to a friend
Most people would say that someone has the right to be a vegetarian, since it’s a personal choice. But most people would also say that their choice doesn’t give them the right to enter a hot dog eating contest and demand that the rules be changed to accommodate them.
That’s an extreme case, but there are other cases that aren’t so clear-cut. When can an organization be expected to accommodate individual beliefs and practices, and when does the individual have to either comply or go home? What would you say in the following situations?
1. The Muslim weightlifter
Kulsoom Abdullah dresses for competitions the same way she always dresses in public – with her entire body covered, except for her face and hands. But she won’t be able to do that if she wants to participate in competitions governed by the International Weightlifting Federation.
The rules say that the elbows and knees must not be covered, so that judges can verify that the joints are locked and that the competitor is not wearing anything that gives them an advantage. But Abdullah was happy to hear that the IWF is willing to discuss the issue at their next meeting, and possibly allow some kind of exemption.
On the one hand, it’s probably possible to figure out a way to cover her elbows and knees while also allowing the judges to do their job. On the other hand, why should the burden be on the IWF and the judges?
What if the competition was during Ramadan (when Muslims fast between sunrise and sunset), so she wanted to compete at 5 AM instead of the scheduled time of 5 PM? What if someone’s religion requires them to wear thick clothing that makes it impossible to verify that their joints are locked? What if someone’s religion forbids them from touching metal?
2. The Marine at airport security
In the movie Taking Chance, Kevin Bacon plays a Marine Corps officer. As he approaches airport security in his service uniform, the TSA agent asks him to remove his medal-clad coat so it can go through the x-ray. Kevin refuses and asks to be taken to a private room and wanded down.
The TSA agent is annoyed and asks not to be told how to do his job. As the growing line becomes increasingly impatient, the agent again asks that the coat be removed. Kevin says he will not desecrate his uniform by running it through the x-ray, and demands to be wanded down in a private room. The agent allows this, but he isn’t happy about it.
This situation is similar to the previous one. He’s perfectly capable of removing his jacket and making it easy for everyone, but doing so conflicts with his beliefs. The biggest difference is that airports are already set up to allow private screenings – it’s not like the TSA has to debate whether they should allow this.
But suppose that for whatever reason, granting this request was difficult (maybe the person who usually does these things wasn’t on duty at the time). Does Kevin have a reasonable right to refuse to take off his coat, or does he give up that right by choosing to fly?
While we’re at it, what if he believed that planes should just drive on the roads instead of flying? What if he wanted to salute with his left hand?
3. The handicapped golfer
Casey Martin has a birth defect known as Klippel Trenaunay Weber syndrome, which requires him to constantly wear two rubber compression stockings and makes it painful and dangerous to walk long distances. He wanted to use a golf cart in the PGA Tour, but the rules say that everyone walks, as the fatigue from walking is part of the game.
His lawyers submitted videos showing the severity of Martin’s condition, in which his leg turned gray as the blood tried to push its way up. They argued that walking would risk fracturing his leg, which would lead to amputation, and that using a cart would not give him an advantage over his competitors who had to walk.
Martin’s request to use a cart under the Americans with Disabilities Act was initially denied by the PGA Tour in 1997. In 2001 the case went to the Supreme Court, who ruled 7-2 in favor of Martin.
Since this situation involves a disability rather than a personal choice, it might be easy to say that of course he can have a cart. But does that give him an unfair advantage over people who have to walk several miles in the hot sun?
If we’re going to say that walking isn’t part of the game, then anyone should be able to use a cart. If we’re going to say that giving him a slight advantage is an acceptable compromise to allow someone with a disability to play, then what constitutes a disability?
What about a sprained ankle? What about narcolepsy? What if someone who can’t swim for medical reasons wants to enter a triathlon?
June 13th, 2011 at 4:01 pm
I have pondered similar questions, specifically with regard to my dietary choices.
I believe that when it’s about a choice, like vegetarianism for dietary/ethical reasons (as opposed to health or religious ones), it’s irrational to impose that belief on a group that doesn’t participate in your belief.
I support the golfer, but not the triathlon hopeful who shouldn’t swim.
Lots of gray areas here.
June 13th, 2011 at 11:39 pm
@ Melissa, there are definitely lots of gray areas here. Fortunately people sometimes have options, like the triathlon hopeful who can instead enter separate cycling and running events.
June 14th, 2011 at 12:05 am
Some interesting situations there. I kinda think with the last one though there is no advantage in having a cart, I mean he has a debilitating condition all of the time, he might be constantly more fatigued than the other golfers, walking 18 holes around a golf course while it definitely counts as exercise isn’t all that strenuous. It’s not like he is rocking up to the ball and playing his shot from the cart.
I’m not sure if pragmatism is the right word here but it seems common sense is all that is needed in most situations.
In the first example I see it as one of those things where religious people pick and choose the rules they follow. Why so intent on not showing skin when I’m pretty sure the simple fact that she is a weight lifter would cause just as much furore in her cohort.
In airports I read recently of someone describing the changes in the last 15 years as the dehumanization of passengers. I tend to agree. Maybe by saying that though it undermines what I said about the weightlifter. Hypocritical? yeah maybe there is some prejudice there but from my point of view I don’t have a big issue with conflicting opinions. I try to root my ideas in reality rather than idealism.
June 14th, 2011 at 11:34 pm
@ Dan, while I’m a fan of common sense, it always seems to lead people to different answers!
June 24th, 2011 at 5:17 pm
Here’s my take:
I think the conclusions we should draw really come down to answering the question: What maximizes freedom?
And in order to answer that question, we must look at both sides!
Consider whose freedom is really being affected in each of the scenarios presented.
The vegetarian hotdog eater, Muslim weightlifter, and handicapped golfer have the freedom to eat veggie-dogs, lift weights, and golf in any manner he or she wants in their own place and time; and even in a competition specifically for veggie-dog eaters, Muslim or “clothed-in-accordance-with-Muslim-religion” weightlifters, and golfers that want/need to use carts. What if no such competition exists? They have the freedom to create one. What freedom? The same freedom utilized by the organizations that created the “real meat hot dogs” eating, “uncovered knees and elbows” weightlifting, and “walking all the way” golf competitions.
This plays out correctly all of the time. There are walking races, running races, motorcycle, car, boat, and plane races—all competitions designed to minimize time over a fixed distance, but with distinct rules and regulations on how to go about doing it.
The conflict with freedom comes when individuals want to enter a specific competition held by a specific organization, but do not want to follow the specific rules which the organization was free to erect. Individuals have the freedom and right to lobby for a change in the rules, just as the individuals in the organizations have the freedom and right to change or not change their rules. But ultimately freedom is maximized when the organization maintains control over their own rules.
When it plays out incorrectly is when individuals use force in the form of government law to limit other individuals’ freedom.
There is a simple expression that seems to fit these scenarios well and serves as a tool in maximizing freedom: Your rights end where another’s begin.
Here’s an illustration to draw attention to the nature of these conflicts: What if some stranger wants to enter your home and sit at your dinner table? Do they have the freedom and right to do this? Do you have the freedom to choose for whom you open your doors and with whom you sit at your own dinner table? An individual has the right to go where they want and eat with whom they want as long as it doesn’t impose on other individuals’ rights. Your rights end where another’s begin.
In regards to the scenario with the Marine at airport security: as it actually played out, it is a non issue because there was already a rule in place to accommodate the marine’s request.
To the related questions:
[But suppose that for whatever reason, granting this request was difficult (maybe the person who usually does these things wasn’t on duty at the time). Does Kevin have a reasonable right to refuse to take off his coat, or does he give up that right by choosing to fly?]
Nobody has a reasonable right to another person’s services. That would require that the other person is forced to serve them. In other words, the other person loses their freedom. Kevin’s rights end where the airline’s begin. Kevin can choose to not take off his coat and the airline or TSA can choose to not provide him with the service of traveling on their planes (or perhaps more accurately in the case of TSA: traveling on planes in their country).
[While we’re at it, what if he believed that planes should just drive on the roads instead of flying?]
He can believe whatever he wants, but he doesn’t have a right to direct organizations on their services and the use of their equipment. And if he owned his own plane? He’d still doesn’t own the roads. If he owned the roads too? Then sure, go for it. But I hope you don’t mind, at this point, if I call your roads “runways…”
[What if he wanted to salute with his left hand?]
He has the right to do that. The Marine Corps would also have the right to kick him out of their organization.
Summary:
Individuals and organizations have the freedom and right to act in accordance with their own interests, as long as their interests don’t infringe on the rights of others. The key point to recognize here is that an organization doesn’t infringe on individuals’ rights when they create their own rules and regulations as long as individuals have the right to create their own organizations with their own rules and regulations.
June 25th, 2011 at 3:10 pm
[...] Hunter Nutall: Should vegetarians enter hot-dog-eating contests? [...]
June 26th, 2011 at 11:36 am
@ Eric, thanks for adding to the discussion!
June 27th, 2011 at 12:15 pm
Thanks Hunter. I hope to contribute more thoughts and ideas as I read other posts. And I hope to have some enlightening discussions here, too!
Keep up the great work with the growth-oriented posts!
October 22nd, 2011 at 8:39 pm
Hi Hunter,
I follow your posts and I like the topics that you choose. For this one, I think you approached your goal by fallacy. And I do agree with Eric’s comments.
But in line with your writing, I think there is a global misunderstanding about freedom, since it is rather new to the civilization compared with its many thousands years of heritage. Everyone wants to be completely free as if no one else is out there and has rights. We are living in a transitional era. Some communities are close to the end of this era and some haven’t entered it yet.
Good luck with your writing and waiting to read more from you.