Food Stamps and Fast Food, Case Study Example

Is it moral to expand the SNAP program to the fast food business pursuant to Utilitarian ethics? Why or why not?

From a Utilitarian perspective, expanding the SNAP program to include fast food  does not makes it immoral or moral because utilitarian ethics follows that “the right course of action from an ethical point of view would be to choose the policy that would produce the greatest amount of utility, or usefulness” (“Corporations and Corporate Governance”, 2012). This means that that an action is right only if “the sum of utilities produced by that action is greater than the sum of utilities from any other possible act” (“Corporations and Corporate Governance”, 2012).  For example while fast food is unhealthy, it is also very cheap and convenient. If it is found that alternative methods are greater negative impact, like the high cost of groceries, the cost of travel, and the time it takes to cook that could be spent seeking employment then Utilitarian ethics actually would favor expanding the program to SAP. While it is illogical to think affordable grocery shopping isn’t significantly cheaper than fast food, utilitarian ethic focuses on the greater good and it must be remembered that the SNAP program would not eliminated groceries as an option it would just be adding an alternative source of food. Not doing so actually deprive people of their right to choose for themselves, which can have a negative psychological and social influence providing the SNAP expansion with another utility in its favor.

Is it moral to expand the SNAP program based on Kantian ethics? Why or why not?

Kant’s use of universalizing in Kantian ethics suggests that the SNAP program may be considered immoral. It’s noted that“Kant “uses “universalizing“ as a form of rational thought that assumes the inherent equality of all human beings. It considers all humans as equal, not in the physical, social, or economic sense, but equal before God, whether they are male, female, Pygmy, Eskimoan, Islamic, Christian, gay, straight, healthy, sick, young, or old” (“Corporations and Corporate Governance”, 2012). The problem is the way this theory is used in application is to assume that everyone in the world were to use the SNAP program and everyone in the world were to use ti for purchasing fast food. The result of this imaginary and impossible scenario dictates whether the SNAP expansion would be immoral based on Kantian ethics. Hypothetically if this were to happen they would be greate5r cases of Diabetes, obesity and other health issues that would diminish the quality of people’s lives, making it immoral. Ironically, if this scenario were applied to Utilitarian ethics it might be found immoral due to the substantial cost it would incur on the healthcare system and other services provided to the public. Due to the fact that Utilitarianism is based on real world scenarios and measures real world pros and cons of utility, the percentage of the population actually using the program must be accounted for in relation to the percentage not using ti as well as the percentage of people who would purchase fast food among those taking part in the program verses those who would continue to purchase groceries.

What should a “socially responsible” Yum Brands be doing for society?

Branco and Rodriguess argue that “Companies engage in corporate social responsibility (CSR) mainly because they can reap some kind of benefits from this kind of interaction. This makes it necessary to have CSR concepts which are able to address this important feature” (Branco & Rodrigues, 2007, p5). This argument suggest that while a socially responsible Yum Brand might offer healthy alternatives to many of their traditionally unhealthy items, they would most likely only do this if there were an incentive as CSR programs tend to take away from a company’s bottom line without an abnormal benefit as a result. The SNAP program could easily provide this incentive by requiring fast food programs to have healthy items on their menu that actually support partition. It would be up to the companies themselves to decide whether or not it would be worth it to pursue this business strategy.

Reference

“Corporations and Corporate Governance” (2012) from the book Legal Aspects of Property, Estate Planning, and Insurance

Shelly, Rosenblatt. (2012). Systems Analysis and Design (9th ed.). Boston: Thomson Course Technology.