Sunday, November 24, 2019
Write 1-2 Page Critique Of The quot;BIg Fat Liabilityquot; Case
Write 1-2 Page Critique Of The quot;BIg Fat Liabilityquot; Case Write 1 "Paternalism" versus "autonomy" Part Paternalism and autonomy are vivid in the Big Fat Liability case. Paternalism involves withholding information such as the truth form an individual so as to benefit them (Conly 10). For the case of the Big Fat Liability, information on consumer health by the McDonalds Company touches on autonomy and paternalism is concerned (Sebok 1). The company focuses on processed meat, French fries and salt. This is straightforward information that does not necessarily need to be advertised. In this case paternalism may not apply much in this case. The company has made it clear on its current changes; thus, presenting the clients with clearly information on health prospects of the company (Sebok 1). Autonomy, on the other hand, involves free operation with minimal government interference (Conly 16). The government did not interfere with the Big Fat Liability case as it argued that the obese teenage girls were not forced to eat at McDonalds and that they could easily see the contents of the food presented to them (Sebok 1). Autonomy applies more in this case as opposed to paternalism since no information was withheld from the customer. Part 2 Marketing is not just a psychological exploitation of customers. Flint writes that "successful" marketing schemes involve coalition between the agencies and retailers (6). This means that the retailers can drive the retail market and even become excellent shoppers even without manipulation of their psychology. A good example is the clients of Walmart that have exciting and collaborative shoppers with minimal manipulation of their psychology (Flint 6). Conly, Sarah. Against Autonomy:Ã Justifying Coercive Paternalism. NY: Cambridge University Press,Ã 2012. Print. Flint, Dan. Ã¢â¬Å"The Hub Top 20Ã¢â¬ . The Hub Magazine, May/ June 2014. Web. 28 Feb. 2015. Sebok, Anthony. The "Big Fat" Class Action Lawsuit Against Fast Food Companies: Is It More Than Just A Stunt? 14 Aug. 2002. Web. 28 Feb. 2015.