An Ethical Analysis of the Film Super Size Me

Introduction

Upon analyzing, in great detail, any scenario that arises in society, one can soon discover the ethical underpinnings associated with each outcome. Furthermore, these ethical underpinnings may differ depending on the philosophical perspective taken. Among the most pertinent mediums for which ethical issues arise in modern society is film. Films and other forms of visual entertainment raise many ethical questions for which there are no clear right or wrong answers.

For example, in the film Super Size Me, filmmaker Morgan Spurlock raises several questions related to the ethical implications of the fast food industry (most notably, McDonald's). As views differ regarding this film, the purpose of this paper is to present an ethical analysis based on three varying perspectives. A moral universalist perspective of the film's theme will first be discussed, including an analysis of the likely view of the filmmaker. A utilitarian view of the film will then be considered. Finally, this film will be analyzed from a consequentialist perspective. Based on the arguments herein, this paper will then draw conclusions about the validity of each ethical perspective.

Moral Universalist Perspective

The moral universalist perspective on ethics suggests that one universal ethic exists for all life, without consideration for demographic or geographic differences (Anchustegui, 2010). Specifically, this approach adopts a moral realist view on ethics, suggesting that an absolute reality exists apart from subjective interpretation. As such, a moral universalist would assert that, as the same physical laws govern all activity within the Universe, so do the ethics and morals that govern such actions. The moral universalist perspective is in stark contrast to nihilism and relativism, which both oppose the notion of an absolute reality or morality (Anchustegui, 2010). Many historical religious thinkers have favored a moral universalist approach

In the film Super Size Me, director Morgan Spurlock (2004) adopts a moral universalist approach to argue against the fast food industry's "unhealthy" menu items, which he suggests are responsible for many of the health problems we currently witness today. Throughout the film, Spurlock goes to great lengths to illustrate the negative health risks of consuming a strictly fast food diet. After an extended period of time eating just McDonald's menu items, and forcing himself to "super size" his meal any time it was suggested to him, Spurlock's weight gain and fatigue are obvious. Furthermore, Spurlock reports mood disturbances, uncontrollable cravings for fast food, and even a disrupted sex life. While Spurlock is less vocal as to his precise ethical viewpoint on the matter, it is clear that he is perpetuating a moral universalist morality on the food industry, which he believes must succumb to the same ethical perspective that he does. Like all issues of human rights taken from a moral universalist perspective, in which suffering must be minimized, Spurlock believes the suffering caused by excessive fast food consumption be alleviated (Anchustegui, 2010).

Utilitarian Perspective

The utilitarian perspective on morality suggests that, in any ethical decision, the course of action be taken that is associated with the maximum utility for society (Bhaskar, 2011). This approach may be summed up by the popular phrase, "the greatest good for the greatest number of people". When making ethical decisions from a utilitarian perspective, the course of action that maximizes the most number of peoples' happiness and minimizes the most peoples' suffering is generally taken (Bhaskar, 2011). However, happiness and utility are not interchangeable, and some instances arise in which these two concepts differ (e.g., removing welfare because it is preventing motivation to seek employment). As is the case, the maximum utility is sometimes difficult to determine in any given scenario (Bhaskar, 2011).

In Super Size Me, it is evident that Spurlock also adopts a utilitarian perspective toward the fast food industry. According to the overlying theme of the film, which is decidedly opposed to the fast food industry, it can be inferred that Spurlock believes the maximum utility for society would clearly be to eat healthier. While Spurlock never clearly states what action should be done, or how to solve any existing problems related to the overconsumption of fast food, his anti-corporative views are apparent. Furthermore, Spurlock fails to consider the utility of being able to feed millions of low-income families at minimal cost or the exhibition of free market capitalism that the fast food industry proudly displays. Nevertheless, Super Size Me reveals the sometimes-ambiguous utilitarian approach to ethical decision-making (Bhaskar, 2011).

Consequentialist Perspective

Consequentialism is an ethical perspective suggesting that the consequence of one's, or a group's, actions be the basis for deciding a proper course of action (Brand, 2009). According to this approach, the ends justify the means, as achieving a desired outcome outweighs any immoral steps taken to do so (Brand, 2009). In any ethical scenario adopting a consequentialist approach, the course of action that provides the greatest level of happiness to the greatest number of people is usually taken (Brand, 2009). In this sense, consequentialism and utilitarianism are similar. However, these approaches differ in their judgment or the "rightness" or "wrongness" of an action. While utilitarianism seeks to maximize happiness, consequentialism makes preemptive assertions about the morality of an outcome aside from this happiness factor (Aguilar, Brussino, & Fernandez-Dois, 2013).

It is this consequentialist perspective that offers the most interesting platform from which to discuss Super Size Me. Spurlock most strongly represents this ethical viewpoint in his opposition to the fast food industry. Based on the theme evident within the film, Spurlock believes that the negative health outcomes associated with overconsumption of fast food does not warrant the freedom and industrial autonomy the fast food industry currently possess. According to Spurlock's film, regulating or even shutting down these restaurants would be advantageous to the health and well-being of the population. Unfortunately, Spurlock offers no commentary on where the responsibility for population health lies (i.e., the consumer of the product or its supplier). Nevertheless, it is clear that Spurlock favors this consequentialist perspective when viewing both the fast food industry and human health.

Conclusion

The purpose of this paper was to present an ethical analysis of the film, Super Size Me. Drawing on three differing ethical perspectives, themes from the film were used to discuss factors related to ethical decision-making within the fast food industry. Spurlock can be said to identify with each of the ethics presented above to some degree, although he most strongly adopts a consequentialist viewpoint in his opposition to fast food and promotion of healthy eating. According to Spurlock, the free enterprise displayed by the fast food industry does not warrant the nutritional risk caused by a small percentage of the population who excessively consume their product. Therefore, Spurlock's consequentialist viewpoint would likely indicate that the fast food industry be regulated or mandated to produce healthier products at a greater expense to them.

References

Aguilar, P., Brussino, S. & Fernandez-Dois, J.-M. (2013). Psychological distance increases uncompromising consequentialism. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49(3), 449-452.

Anchustegui, E. (2010). Introduction to philosophy. San Diego: Cognella.

Bhaskar, R. (2011). Reclaiming reality: a critical introduction to contemporary philosophy. New York: Routledge.

Brand, J. (2009). Beyond consequentialism. Philosophical Review, 122(4), 657-661.

Spurlock, M. (2004). Super size me [Motion picture]. United States: Kathbur Pictures.