Below is an essay i wrote after a Steubenville conference. The cookies served at the conference inspired me. Now that i have declared my major, I might as well post it, as i search for the why of my having chosen the major. It is an embarassment, but hey, i didn't know the first thing about philosophy or anything, really.
Written for personal pleasure
Summer 2002
“The Cookie Essay”
The situation is as follows: A single serving package contains two cookies. Each cookie contains eight grams of fat.
The Problem: For the health-conscious individual, eight grams of fat is an excessive amount for a mere three-inch cookie. Although it may seem, at first, that this is an easily negotiable situation with the obvious solution of just eating one, it is not quite so simple.
The Argument(s): If one cookie is eaten, then the second one is still there. It beckons the eater to eat it after the first cookie has been eaten. There are several solutions to this problem. One is the option of simply throwing out the second cookie before it begins to tempt the eater. This, however, is not a morally sound argument, for some consideration must be given to all of the hungry people in the world who would very much like to eat that cookie, and, if the eater of the first cookie were to throw it out, it would, in fact, be sneering at those hungry people in a way, as if to say that “I am so full that I do not need to eat another cookie.” Also, in general, it seems like a waste of perfectly good junk food. But, on the other hand, the whole argument of it being a waste to throw the cookie away because a hungry person in the world could and/or should eat it is ludicrous, because once a package of cookies is opened, it will not last long enough to allow the eater of the first cookie to go and find a hungry person, unless, they, in fact, eat the first cookie while looking at a hungry person, and intend to give the second cookie to the hungry person.
The second option for the second cookie is to save it for later and hope that one is not overcome by the power that a single cookie contains, namely, the power to make itself be eaten, and eaten very soon after its companion, the first cookie, has been eaten. Now, let us explore why exactly the single cookie has so much power. First of all, it is but one cookie, and “What harm could a single cookie do?” says the normal human being who has just eaten a cookie and is looking at the second. It is interesting that a mere three inch cookie could captivate even the strongest and make them think that since it is, in fact, so small, that it is quite harmless. To be sure, it does seem as though it would not do much harm at all. But then, the truth still remains that there are eight grams of fat even in that tiny little cookie. The average human being continues to rationalize, “But what are eight grams of fat? I eat many things with eight grams of fat. Why, a piece of beef that I would eat for supper contains twice the amount of fat of this cookie.” This also brings up an interesting topic, for over the ages the eating of beef has always been accepted as a healthy food, commonly served for dinner all across many nations. The cookie, on the other hand, has been somewhat vilified as a food that makes the average human being, quite simply, fat. It is interesting to consider that if a caricature were to be drawn of a portly person, he would not commonly be drawn with a steak in his jaw; no, but with a cookie. But all of this is beside the point. Returning to the thought that eight grams of fat is not a lot is a complete and utter lie, for in fact, eight grams of fat require hours of strenuous exercise and sweating to work off. Thus this argument fails, as did the last. Continuing in explaining the power of the cookie, it must be understood that a cookie does in fact, taste scrumptious. Since the human palate is quite inclined towards foods that are delectable in nature, it is only a normal human instinct. Thus, it becomes obvious that the eater who tries to defy the second cookie saying, “I will not eat you,” is, in fact, going against his or her natural instinct to eat it, and as all natural instincts are difficult to overcome, this one is no less. But then, the human body is also inclined towards foods that are wholesome to the body. Since the cookie is not wholesome to the body, it is also natural to decline the cookie, saying definitely that, “I will not eat you.” Therefore, what can be deduced is that the cookie does, indeed have power, for it wills the mind to think that declining the cookie by saying, “I will not eat you,” is actually against human nature, when, in fact, it would actually be against human nature to say, “I will eat you!” Thus the ugly, evil nature of the second cookie is revealed. The first cookie is not labeled so harshly because it remains relatively harmless, offering some oils and fats to a diet, which are actually recommended. Now then, returning to the problem at hand, explicitly, what to do with that second cookie, which has now been accused of malevolence. Even if it really were evil, however, it would still be a waste to throw it out. Also, it could still be given to a hungry person, for whom it would be a first cookie, thereby losing the title of “evil” and returning to the rank of “healthful oils and fats.”
Now, a slightly far-fetched notion which must dealt with is that, no, the second cookie may not be placed into protective custody so that you do not eat it before the next day arrives. Its power would only lead it to being eaten by one of the protecting custodians, since, in all likelihood he would have already eaten a donut that day. That would mean that the rank of that cookie automatically changes to that of arch villainous cookie, because it is common knowledge that a donut has far more fat than the eight that one cookie has. This introduces a puzzling question. “Why,” a person may wonder, “have security guards been stereotyped as tubby, multi-donut-consuming little men.” The person would be very justified in asking this question, for it seems that in any movie involving security guards, both as major and minor characters, a bulk of these security guards are the aforementioned generously proportioned individuals. Strangely, with this comment, an answer also comes about, because not only is it seen that security guards are portrayed as portly men in movies, but it is, in fact, the movies themselves that started the trend. Thus, since they are portrayed as fat, the natural instinct of the movie industry is to place a donut, which in essence is a worse form of the abovementioned cookie caricature, into the hand of the security guard in movies. All of this, however, is beside the point, for even though the security guard may very well be chunky, he most certainly should have at least a little bit of common sense, which would restrain him from eating what he is paid to protect. Therefore, do not fear placing your cookie into protective custody because of the threat that it may be eaten. The real concern for the cookie that you have placed into protective custody is that strange people put themselves and/or objects into such places, and the cookie, to be sure, may become infected with a dangerous bacterium if exposed to the same places where these strange persons had previously placed themselves. Now at this point, it can be seen that throwing out the second cookie, hoping to overcome its powerful influence, and placing it into protective custody are miserable options.
This is where a fourth argument makes an appearance. This fourth option is to leave the cookie on a picnic table in a public park or other such place, in the hope that some passerby should eat it. This leaves much to chance, and also leaves other individuals with morally unsound decisions to make, which unavoidably leaves them under the power of the cookie. As to the idea that it is left to chance, the cookie, while sitting on the table, is unprotected from the elements, and should it rain, would become saturated with water and make a mushy mess. This is not an agreeable arrangement, because not only does the table become stained, but also people are less likely to use that table and therefore have to go to other tables. Should there be no other picnic tables available, it forces unwilling patrons to use the sullied table. Since they would not like to eat on a table with a large cookie stain, it forces them to clean up the mess of the eater of the first cookie who left it on the table. Since the cookie matter is a completely personal matter for the eater, other people should not be involved, especially doing any dirty work. Another way that the cookie is left to chance sitting on the table unprotected is the threat of buzzards stealing it from the eater’s original purpose of having a chance patron of the park come by, notice the cookie, and eat it. This is wholly unacceptable for the cookie is intended only for unfeathered creatures. Also, it would leave the eater of the first cookie with no option but to come to the same park every day and leave a cookie on the table, for the reason that it is not good for any natural habitat to feed animals and then suddenly stop. Thus, it is a moral obligation to not allow any birds to reach the cookie in the first place. As for the fantastic decisions that the passerby who sees the cookie must make, this is a troubling and very strange concept. It unfolds as follows. As young children, most individuals are undoubtedly taught not to eat any strange victuals, as a despicable individual who wishes to poison foolish little children who have not yet been taught to leave strange foodstuffs alone, may have placed them there. As the passerby notices the cookie on the table, he/she certainly remembers the scene earlier in their childhood when they were indubitably warned by their caretakers never to eat unfamiliar groceries. At this moment, the individual must decide between what they have always believed to be true, namely, that strange foods are poisoned, and whether they want to risk eating the cookie. They think nothing of fat content, since the mind is preoccupied with much greater decisions, such as risking one’s life for a bit of earthly pleasure. It is undesirable to leave a person with such a decision, not only because they would, in fact, be disregarding their caretakers’ words, but also because having eaten the cookie and survived, they may take less heed to the lessons they learned as youngsters. Consequently, the next time they saw an opened package of food, and should they eat it, when in fact this package had been poisoned, the eater of the first cookie who had left the second cookie on the picnic table would be responsible for the death of the passerby.
Now, the fifth option would be to invite a companion to partake of the cookie. If this is to be effective, however, the companion must be invited before the first cookie has been eaten, otherwise the companion is forced to feel socially awkward, eating a single cookie with his/her friend observing. Additionally, it is impolite to invite a companion to eat but one cookie, for a good, generous host would give more than one cookie. But then, would that really describe a hospitable host either, for, the caring host also looks out for his guests health, and would hate it if, after leaving, their guest died of a coronary. All of this, however, leaves it in a dead lock, giving the host no option but to have to accept a socially awkward situation, in an effort to save the person from an early death. Thus, the plan of inviting a friend over for the second cookie is not effective, because it would be better for the host if there were no situation, rather than running the risk of having a socially unacceptable, or potentially deadly one.
The sixth option is only possible for select members of society, namely, scientists, and/or biology students. The reasons for these limitations are quite reasonable. The way that scientists could use the second cookie, for example, would be to use it for experimentation perhaps in the hopes of improving its shelf life, and life after the package has been opened. If a better cookie were made, perhaps the cookie would last long enough to wait to eat it the next day. On the other hand, however, making the cookie last longer would undoubtedly mean that excessive amounts of preservatives would have to be used to make the cookie last this long. This argument also has it flaws, for no normal human being wishes to pump so many preservatives into their systems. That means that the argument is further narrowed down to scientists trying to make the cookie last a long time exclusively with natural preservatives. Such a person is difficult to find, therefore if the experimentation line of thought is to succeed, the biology student must be considered next. The biology student can use the cookie for a project, a project for example, that tests how long it takes a substance to mold. Although this idea seems reasonable at first, it must be remembered that for a science experiment to be effective, the experiments must be done at least threefold, and since there is only one cookie, it is impossible to do three experiments. More cookies would have to be purchased for this to succeed. This is out of the question, however, since the whole argument is focused mostly on what to do with that second cookie, and that second cookie alone.
Now, an option that has not yet been considered is the seventh, which is, in fact, to freeze the second cookie. After all, a human being may think that if it is in the freezer it is, “Out of sight,” and therefore, “Out of mind.” Thinking this, however, the person would have realized that, “Yes, that cookie is in the freezer, and I can not see it, therefore I will not be inclined to eat it.” This is placing one foot in the grave, however, for this realization will only make the person think about the cookie every time that they see the freezer, and in all likelihood, they would not stop thinking about it. It would be the same as repeatedly saying, “I am not thinking about it, I am not thinking about it,” which most definitely is thinking about it. Supposing, however, that the people do not think to themselves that, “That cookie in the freezer is out of sight, and therefore out of my mind,” then they can proceed further into the argument. The problem is, that the argument does not go much further from there, because once the cookie is placed in the freezer, it becomes susceptible to the effects of freezer burn. More importantly, however, even if the vulnerable cookie resists freezer burn, it still has to go through the harsh defrosting process, which is likely to damage the already frazzled cookie. Now, an alternative to the freezer involves the use what is commonly known as a “vacuum packer”. Vacuum packing the cookie supposedly keeps the cookie very fresh, and it very well may. However, since this vacuum packing device is relatively new on the market, it is typically only available through infomercials. Thus to buy one of these contrivances would mean having to succumb to the infomercial industry, which is completely unsound morally.
The following option, which happens to be the eighth, is an attempt at a conclusion and relief. Since this argument depends upon the age of the eater of the first cookie, it must be extensive to be effectual. To begin, if the eater of the first cookie is young, preferably in the adolescent stage of life, what can be suggested is for them to simply eat the cookie, since in fact, adolescents have highly overactive metabolisms, and are able to consume the cookie with little effect on their bodily equilibrium. This is with but one condition. If that young person decides to eat the second cookie, it is not recommended that they do so before long periods of quiet are anticipated, as hyperactivity may ensue. Now, if the eater of the first cookie happened to be old, then it is not recommended that they eat the second cookie, as the adolescent did. Rather, the old person is encouraged to find a young person, to whom they may present the cookie, perhaps saying, “You make me sick, you with your overactive metabolism.” But as with all seven of the previous arguments, there is a glitch to this whole frame of mind. This is that the old person would be encouraging the young person to “binge” as it has sometimes been called. This is where the old person must be very careful, and they must be sure to remind the young person to whom they are presenting the cookie that, “You will not always have such a fine metabolism with which to consume high-fat foods. Thus, be sure that when you get old, you abandon your old eating habits, otherwise you will get a paunch that looks something like mine.” The final part of that statement may be cut out depending on who it is that is saying it, for by no means are old people always fat, as is the archetypal security guard. All of this, however, brings up a touchy subject, specifically, what defines someone as old, as opposed to young. This is an area that must be clarified, and in fact, the word “old” must be completely redefined. When speaking the word “old” what is meant is not one highly advanced in years, rather, someone whose metabolism has ceased to function as that of an adolescent. This changes things, beyond just cookies. For example it may be more appropriate to rephrase the derogatory saying “old maid,” to something that may be read, “an unmarried woman with a metabolism not quite as fast as that of an adolescent.” This would, in essence, be the same as calling a woman a “maiden,” for after all, a maiden is unmarried, and since she is of marital age, it is probable that her metabolism has, in all likelihood, slowed to some extent. Another example can be the expression that someone is an “old-timer”, which is a derogatory term, meaning someone past his or her prime. Corrected with the new definition, a passerby would not say the aforesaid derogatory statement, but perhaps with awe, gasping that, “There goes that person with experience, albeit with a slower metabolism than an adolescent”. But backing away from the young-old issue, and returning to the eighth argument, it must be understood that even though adolescents do have overactive metabolisms, they eventually cease to be “young,” and they should always, therefore, be discouraged from getting into the habit of “binging.”
The Resolution(s): As it can be seen, the issue is just as troubling as it was in the beginning. With every argument there is a counterargument and with every positive thought there comes a negative thought. Whenever it seems as though breakthrough has been finally achieved, there is always something to bring what seems to be a wonderful argument back to square one. That, in turn, leads to the realization that there was no hope for the argument to begin with, and thus makes it seem like a total waste. There still is one redeeming quality to it all, however, which is that unsuitable options have been eliminated. These negatives, then, come out as positives, because it is good that the bad arguments were eliminated. It seems that this is the only wholesome result from all of the arguments. This is not completely undesirable; however, for there is a shortage of the kinds of incidents reported that involve bad things working for good.
