View Full Version : Is fast food immoral?
s-o-i-d-p
July 7, 2008, 04:45 PM
People still buy the likes of KFC, McDonalds, Burger King, etc. despite greater public knowledge of good nutrition.
There is some talk for instance that KFC is addictive, because they (supposedly) put addictive substances in the chicken. I guess, if this is true, it means more sales/market share/profits because people time and again would buy their chicken.
So, is fast food immoral? If fast food companies can allegedly make their food addictive, which thus can cause cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, etc. should fast food be shunned?
thegdin
July 7, 2008, 04:55 PM
i cant imagine how a product can be immoral. thats a human trait. if the companies are chemically altering their peoduct to make it physically addictive then that act is immoral. if someone feeds an excessive amount of fast food to a child who doesnt know any better, that could be considered immoral. fast food, by itself immoral, no.
pete
July 7, 2008, 05:05 PM
I use McDonalds.... they have a code of behavior and ethics that counts as morality in my book.
It may not coincide with your morality though.
Smullyan-esque
July 7, 2008, 08:20 PM
There is some talk for instance that KFC is addictive, because they (supposedly) put addictive substances in the chicken.I know from personal experience that they DO put an addictive substance in their chicken. It appears to be concentrated in the skin, and exposure to heat activates it. El Pollo Loco uses the same substance.
The substance is called "delicious". I can't get enough of it! :D
premjan
July 7, 2008, 08:22 PM
The addictive substance is probably grease.
KyleFromDenver
July 7, 2008, 09:48 PM
There are many places where I'd rather get fried chicken than KFC or Popeye's. My mom makes fried chicken 1000 times better than any of these places.
McD's is OK when I want something quick, but not the best. Same with BK or Wendy's. Too much of it, like anything, though, is definitely a health hazard.
So if KFC is trying to make their food addictive they're doing a shitty job AFAIC.
MrFungus420
July 8, 2008, 01:07 AM
So, is fast food immoral?
Is paper immoral? How about a car? A computer? A tree? A lamp? A gun? A bandage?
There is no object that is, in and of itself, either moral or immoral.
GenesisNemesis
July 8, 2008, 01:51 AM
I have yet to see a reason as to why eating is a moral matter, except if its eating humans. Certainly, for thousands of years, people have been shrugging off this so-called "moral problem". Why is it a moral problem?
DaMan121
July 8, 2008, 02:20 AM
The actual food? No. Selling the food knowing that it has more harmful effects than positive? Maybe. Having means to improve the nutrition of the product but not doing so because it will hurt profit? Maybe. Deceive consumers about the nutritional benefits of the product? Yes. Advertising to impressionable minors through cartoon characters and such? Maybe.. but then maybe ALL advertising is immoral.
whichphilosophy
July 8, 2008, 02:34 AM
People still buy the likes of KFC, McDonalds, Burger King, etc. despite greater public knowledge of good nutrition.
There is some talk for instance that KFC is addictive, because they (supposedly) put addictive substances in the chicken. I guess, if this is true, it means more sales/market share/profits because people time and again would buy their chicken.
So, is fast food immoral? If fast food companies can allegedly make their food addictive, which thus can cause cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, etc. should fast food be shunned?
If fast food is immoral don't eat it. They can cause problems but that is up to the person to educate themselves. The public don't purchase what they need; the purchase what they want.
J.F. Gaul
July 8, 2008, 03:16 AM
People still buy the likes of KFC, McDonalds, Burger King, etc. despite greater public knowledge of good nutrition.
People still buy Ford automobiles, despite their poor quality. Does that make Ford immoral?
There is some talk for instance that KFC is addictive, because they (supposedly) put addictive substances in the chicken. I guess, if this is true, it means more sales/market share/profits because people time and again would buy their chicken.
Sorry, but I don't think you can develop a physical dependence on fast food.
So, is fast food immoral?
No.
But if you have moral misgivings, don't eat it.
general_koffi
July 8, 2008, 06:43 AM
People still buy Ford automobiles, despite their poor quality. Does that make Ford immoral?
My Ford is pretty decent.
(Probably because it was made in a Mazda factory.)
Trout
July 8, 2008, 07:52 AM
There is some talk for instance that KFC is addictive, because they (supposedly) put addictive substances in the chicken. I guess, if this is true, it means more sales/market share/profits because people time and again would buy their chicken.
So, is fast food immoral? If fast food companies can allegedly make their food addictive, which thus can cause cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, etc. should fast food be shunned?
:rolling: Good gad man, what is this an Oprah episode on how the 350 lb people of the planet deserve pity for their shameful cupcake addictions?
If by some bizarre chance fast food was actually addictive then perhaps we'd have something to talk about but the concept is completely ridiculous.
People get addicted to heroin, booze, cigarettes, cocaine, pain killers and so on but they do not get addicted to fried chicken, burgers, or burritos! The very idea of comparing these things is insulting to the plight of the truly suffering addicts and their friends/families out there.
Taco Bell may be a horrible place to eat and sell bad tasting, unhealthy foods but it is not a freakin drug cartel.
s-o-i-d-p
July 8, 2008, 11:21 AM
People still buy the likes of KFC, McDonalds, Burger King, etc. despite greater public knowledge of good nutrition.
People still buy Ford automobiles, despite their poor quality. Does that make Ford immoral?
Sorry, but I don't think you can develop a physical dependence on fast food.
So, is fast food immoral?
No.
But if you have moral misgivings, don't eat it.
Ford cars aren't a good analogy. If people are addicted to fast food, then they would buy it repeatedly, which thus makes KFC, Burger King, or whoever, more sales/market share/profits. People aren't addicted to buying fast food, and I'd say driving a car was more of a necessity than eating fried chicken.
s-o-i-d-p
July 8, 2008, 11:30 AM
There is some talk for instance that KFC is addictive, because they (supposedly) put addictive substances in the chicken. I guess, if this is true, it means more sales/market share/profits because people time and again would buy their chicken.
So, is fast food immoral? If fast food companies can allegedly make their food addictive, which thus can cause cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, etc. should fast food be shunned?
:rolling: Good gad man, what is this an Oprah episode on how the 350 lb people of the planet deserve pity for their shameful cupcake addictions?
If by some bizarre chance fast food was actually addictive then perhaps we'd have something to talk about but the concept is completely ridiculous.
People get addicted to heroin, booze, cigarettes, cocaine, pain killers and so on but they do not get addicted to fried chicken, burgers, or burritos! The very idea of comparing these things is insulting to the plight of the truly suffering addicts and their friends/families out there.
Taco Bell may be a horrible place to eat and sell bad tasting, unhealthy foods but it is not a freakin drug cartel.
http://www.reuniting.info/science/articles/fast_food_sexual_stimulation_may_be_addictive
There is some evidence that fast food is addictive.
thebeave
July 8, 2008, 03:45 PM
Where do you draw the line on immorality with regard to food that's maybe not the best thing for you? How about ice cream? How about chocolate? How about wine? beer? How about a big Jamba Juice smoothie? How about a $70 meal in a French restaurant that's loaded with fatty sauces, followed by a sugary, fatty dessert? Is that immoral? Or does it get a free pass simply because its expensive and/or because poor, unsophisticated people can't/don't eat there? Fuck, I wish people would just get off their high horse with regard to fast food.
Sabine Grant
July 8, 2008, 04:22 PM
Where do you draw the line on immorality with regard to food that's maybe not the best thing for you? How about ice cream? How about chocolate? How about wine? beer? How about a big Jamba Juice smoothie? How about a $70 meal in a French restaurant that's loaded with fatty sauces, followed by a sugary, fatty dessert? Is that immoral? Or does it get a free pass simply because its expensive and/or because poor, unsophisticated people can't/don't eat there? Fuck, I wish people would just get off their high horse with regard to fast food. I understood the OP to mean to explore whether selling products (fast food in that instance) which result in addictive habits is ethically justified.
In the US hyper consuming culture, just about any product creates a demand from the consumer.
Now, do not be so harsh on French cuisine... I can fix a French dinner for less than 20 dollars. (and it will not have fatty sauces and a sugary fatty desert still will be delicious);)
Trout
July 9, 2008, 07:59 AM
There is some evidence that fast food is addictive.
I don't buy that whatsoever. Different people like different things across the planet and either choose to eat them all the time or not. Excepting insofar as we will die without it, food is not "addictive" in that sense.
How difficult is this to understand exactly? Despite the calls for sympathy for all the fast food fans out there, they are NOT addicts, they are just idiots. Comparing fried chicken to heroin is a gross misrepresentation of the facts and a disgusting misuse of research.
Call me when we have people dealing twinkies in alleys.
Keith&Co.
July 9, 2008, 09:24 AM
A bandage?Evil bandages?
I bought a box of band-aids that are printed to look like raw bacon. My kid got a kick out of them and skinned a knee with suspicious rapidity.
He mentioned a week later that someone school pointed to it and told him that wearing the flesh of a living being made Jesus cry. My 14-year old shrugged and asked: Is that a leather belt?
----
I don't think a physical object can be immoral. Morality concerns actions taken and the motives behind them. Physical objects have no motives. THe people that made them might, and those that use them, sell them, steal them, consumers and regulators, importers and restrictors. But those are all the actions of humans.
Trout
July 9, 2008, 09:33 AM
Hey does anyone know how to get a french fry into a syringe?
Just askin
bopot
July 9, 2008, 09:51 AM
"Is fast food immoral?"
No, but this is the angle the bully vegetarians intend to play. Keep your eyes open for it. It'll start with banning beef because belching cows are going to drown this generation and fry the next to a crisp. Or something to that effect.
Then comes centrally planned vegetarian diets, eventually culminating with astronaut-style packets of vegetable paste issued to all "citizens" (read: subjects).
fast
July 9, 2008, 10:00 AM
So, is fast food immoral? If fast food companies can allegedly make their food addictive, which thus can cause cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, etc. should fast food be shunned?
If they, and with intention, add addictive substances into their already unhealthy food for the purpose of financial gain while knowing that consumers will eat excessive unhealthy food that would not otherwise be eaten had there been no addictive substances, thereby adding undue health risks to those who so shall ever eat their food, then their actions are and should be considered immoral; consequently, since we should shun those who are immoral, they should be shunned.
PS: I resent the implication that my food is immoral. :D
Tom Sawyer
July 9, 2008, 10:17 AM
Fast food can be immoral. For instance, at lunch last week, I saw a Big Mac beat up a homeless orphan so that it could steal his shoes. By proceeding to eat the offending burger, I provided justice to a defenseless child who needed it (and I got myself a free pair of shoes).
So, yes, fast food is immoral. Sacrificing our arteries in combat with these villians is the responsibility of all good and decent people in the world.
I Am Only An Egg
July 11, 2008, 12:39 AM
If public knowledge about the dangers of fast food is increasing but people are still buying fast food, then it's the consumers who are idiots. Morality doesn't really come into play unless the fast food companies are trying to hide how unhealthy their food is (which I don't think they're even trying to do anymore).
"Oh, you mean you'll still eat our grease-filled-vomit-patties now that you know what's in them? Cool."
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.