Which philosopher here can correctly classify this argument?

Question

Either McDonald's takes away the fattening foods from it's menu, or consumers will continue the obesity epidemic.
If McDonald's changes it's menu, people will stop eating there and it's employees will inadvertently lose their jobs.
If the obesity epidemic continues, people will be at risk for diabetes, heart disease and multiple other deadly health problems.
Thus, either McDonalds employees inadvertently lose their jobs or the obesity epidemic will continue, leading people to suffer from multiple deadly health problems.


What is this?? 10 points to the correct answer.

Psyengine, you are one smart cookie! :)

Ok, since it's already been correctly answered, I will classify for you:

This is an invalid argument, set in the guise of a "Big Constructive Dilemma" but in fact, it's premises are untrue, which makes it invalid and unsound. :) For those of you who did not correctly answer, try taking a Philosophy class!

Answer 1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

Mac food is normal food and contains nothing extra not found in nature. Fat accumulations is an inactivity problem brought on by urbanization and technological innovation and right to property exclusion.

Answer 2

The argument is a string of assumptions within conditional clauses that cannot be proven true. The obesity epidemic is larger than (pardon the pun) the McDonald's menu, and the fact remains that people choose to eat at McDonald's, so McDonald's is not solely responsible for the obesity epidemic.

Second, the mere fact that McDonald's changes its menu to a healthier alternative does not mean that people will cease to eat there, consequently leading to the unemployment of McDonald's employees.

So, there are multiple problems with the argument, thus leading to the inevitable conclusion that we classify this argument as spurious at best.

Answer 3

MCDonald's must have alternatives for the food that they give and i think that obesity comes from mainly MCDonald's. MCDonlad's can do a lot of things to help lose obesity like non-fat products or veggie menus.

anyway, the employess won't lose their jobs just because the menu changes, there are always people who will because everything must be equivalent.

and why are you picking on MCDonlad's? they are not the only one that causes the problem!?!?!

Answer 4

This sounds like the logic of liberals. So what if people lose their jobs and other people die from their own stupid choices. A free society depends on the will of the people to govern themselves. McD can change the menu and more people could eat there - the Wholefoods yuppies for example. You just have to convince them that it's trendy and cool to do it, and their life is better for it, even better, if they don't they won't be keeping up with the Jones family.

Answer 5

What kind of argument? This is a good example of the false dichotomy, and also involves a few statements that are presented as inferences but are really assumptions or hypotheses. As philosophy or logic, it is not good.
As a discussion of public policy, it is a good opening statement for a real and meaningful debate.

Answer 6

I don't know much about philosophy so I can't really say what the "academic" answer is but I'd say it sounds like McDonald's is stuck between a rock and a hard place. :o)

Answer 7

stupid human realities we are addicted to things not good for us