Obligation of Caretaking.

In response to Michael - full post here

I am not convinced that it would ever be morally obligatory to eat a nutritional diet. Each person has a right to eat things of their own choosing, so we could hardly ever oblige someone to eat in a specific way.

Though, I can see an exception, I suppose. A caretaker, for instance, should refrain from eating a diet so awful that they will not live long enough to fulfill their duties as a caretaker. This also depends on the object of ones care. Children, parrots, chimps, certain dogs (like seeing-eye dogs), et cetera, can all sustain incredible emotional damage from the death of a caretaker; many animals will refuse to eat when their caretaker dies, and will therefore die themselves.

The obligation of caretaking for more intelligent beings overrules many other choices that would otherwise be a matter of personal preference. A person should not do substantially risky things if they are in charge of the well-being of another individual because the choice involves more than their individual preference.

Thank you for this post; I appreciate the thoughts to which it helped lead me.

Also, while I don't necessarily agree with objective morals (I don't know if they exist) I don't know if it is appropriate to consider culture, religion, and time when discussing morality. Access to information is important, I agree.