On the use of artificial sweeteners

So, a question I’ve been pondering for a bit. In order for an act to be moral, it must be ordered towards its proper ends. This is why, for instance, the use of contraception during procreation is wrong. Does it follow, then, that artificial sweeteners, used to replace the sweetness of sugar without providing nourishment, are also immoral to use and consume, as they defy the end of eating?

Seriously?

:popcorn:

(Sugar hardly provides good nourishment in any case, at least the kind you add to tea/coffee/mass-produced-food-in-huge-quantities, so it would equally not count as being ordered toward the proper end of eating!).

But seriously while I see your point I hardly think the cases are parallel. Aspartame or sucrose or whatever disturbing molecule one uses in one’s tea, doesn’t prevent the end goal of drinking it (the great feeling of a good cuppa, and the marginal nourishment one gets from tea). If you forgive me for bringing it up, artificial sweeteners is more like a couple using lubricant (for moral ends :wink: ) to enhance their sex life.

Perhaps an even more ridiculous but equally thought-provoking scenario (if rather more disgusting) - if I used a pencil to hook earwax out, that is definitely not using the pencil for its designed end, nor does it enhance something else as far as I can see (would be safer to use a cotton bud or something). I hardly think if I did this (I wouldn’t, just FTR :stuck_out_tongue: ), I’d be buying a one-way ticket to the Pit of Despair, though. But having coated the graphite so, it probably defies the end of using it to write with…

:popcorn:

The artificial sweetener is giving you all the pleasure of sugar, but without any of the caloric cost. Perhaps this could be a form of gluttony, which is not good since I read that gluttony could be a mortal sin. Of course today, many of the American foods are sweetened not with sugar, but with high fructose corn syrup which is worse for the health.

It’s hard to draw any parallel between eating and sex, since sex involves two immortal persons of infinite value, and eating involves one immortal person eating inanimate objects. Lust is sinful because you’re reducing a creature of infinite value into an object. Food really is an object and it isn’t sinful to perceive it as such. It would actually be sinful the other way around: if you look at food as being godlike (as you correctly should towards fellow human beings; when you look at a man or woman, you are actually looking at - as the Psalmist writes - a god) then it is idolatrous. You are perceiving something of finite value as though it were of infinite value.

A vomitorium would be a closer “parallel”. You feast and then you go outside and throw it up. You’re deliberately acquiring the pleasure of eating and then throwing it up in order to avoid the caloric intake (and then you can go back to eating).

There are no sufficient parallels you can make to sex though. Sex concerns man’s participation with God in the act of creation as well as man’s imitation of the Trinitarian life.

Please let me know where you have found any artificial sweeteners that give you all the pleasure of sugar. Scientists having been trying to replicate sugar for decades and they haven’t come close when it comes to taste, so therefore, no concern. You can still have all the pleasure with contraceptive sex…not so with aspartame or saccharine.

Please let me know where you have found any artificial sweeteners that give you all the pleasure of sugar. Scientists having been trying to replicate sugar for decades and they haven’t come close when it comes to taste, so therefore, no concern. Ever try eating one of those “sugar free candy bars”? Yeah, do that then tell me you get all the pleasure of one with real sugar, you dipshit

Great post. I just wanted to note that the word “vomitorium” does not actually mean what you think it means. :stuck_out_tongue: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vomitorium

I was going to write “seriously?”, but someone beat me to it.

The problem With diet sweeteners is that according to some sources, those who consume them begin to have mind problems later on.

Because the mind is arguably the most “human” part of a human life, it would behooveth us not to use them.

Remember also that aspartame converts to formaldehyde at body temperature!!

ICXC NIKA

Artificial sweeteners also make you crave more sweets.

Aspartame has 92 possible side effects in the human body. Blindness is one of them.

Sucralose is my preferred sweetener, then comes stevia. If it’s a sin to use them, then it’s also a sin to drive automatic cars as it defeats the purpose of shifting gears and locks are also immoral, because it alters the functioning of a proper door, to let people in and out.

I use Stevia, made from a plant. It provides sweetness the same way sugar does, but much more concentrated, so very few calories.

But artificial sweeteners immoral? To quote others: seriously???

Which is not the same as saying that the use of artificial sweeteners is a moral issue along the lines posed by the OP. Death is a possible side-effect of aspirin and penicillin.

Your premise is flawed. Contraception during procreation is wrong because it is impossible to not use the other person involved as the means to an end when using artificial contraception because there is no shared goal, namely the openness to life. Each individual is using the other as a means to the end of pleasure.

Artificial sweeteners, according to scientific studies, have been shown to not be unhealthy. With the health crisis surrounding obesity, if obesity is something one struggles with, artificial sweeteners could be a very, very helpful tool in combating one’s health problem.

[quote=dshix]Great post. I just wanted to note that the word “vomitorium” does not actually mean what you think it means. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vomitorium
[/quote]

I think I just blew a blood vessel in my brain.

Fun fact: With the exploration of the Americas, the potato as a crop started off as a controversial food in Europe because some people thought it was demonic.

I don’t use artificial sweeteners, but that’s because I don’t think they taste very good and I don’t sweeten my tea/coffee/drinks either way. An alternative explanation is that they are demon possessed. They should include that in their labels: “warning, may or may not contain Asmodeus”

Anyway, if artificial sweeteners were sinful in the way contraceptives were, I’m pretty sure you would have heard about it by now.

That’s an incorrect use of the word vomitorium, which is a large hallway.

I was adding more information to the post I quoted from GEddie.

Gluttony is a sin. To the extent that artificial sweeteners promote gluttony, it seems that it would be wrong.

Artificial sweeteners are an abomination and they aren’t better for you than regular sugar.

I try to avoid artificial sweeteners because they all seem to have a nasty after-taste -even the so called natural stevia.
However, I don’t think you can see their use as sinful, any more than low sodium salt or soya bean meat subsitute.

I do hope you are not spending too much time contemplating what is a sin and what is not - it can be all-consuming!

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.