By Xavier Smalls ’25

Majors: Anthropology and Environmental Studies; Minor: Museum, Field, and Community Education

Contributor Biography: Xavier Smalls is an aspiring cultural and environmental anthropologist with interests in music, nature, writing, and the nexus between environmental injustices and human cultures.

Brief Description: This work of writing presents a thorough ethical, moral, and critical analysis of a well-known contemporary moral issue relating to McDonalds: the case of Stella Liebeck, an elderly woman who spilled McDonald’s coffee on herself, resulting in hospitalization and a court case where she was awarded money for punitive damages. Drawing closely on the work of philosopher Vincent Ruggiero and his four steps for analyzing ethical issues, careful studying of case details; identification of relevant moral criteria such as ideals, obligations, and consequences; thought out toward potential courses of action; and presentation of moral judgement, this work explores conflicting obligations and ideals between Liebeck and McDonald’s, alongside alternative courses of action and their associated ethical implications. Ultimately, the presentation of moral judgement, which always should be saved for last, advocates for proactive measures by McDonald’s to enhance safety guidelines, symbolically showcasing the broader importance and necessity of ethical analysis in addressing contemporary moral issues, no matter the scale.

The following was written for Philosophy 102: Contemporary Moral Issues

In today’s growing media and literature, there are more contemporary moral issues than one can contemplate. While analyzing them might seem simple at a glance, they require time, effort, and critical thinking to be conducted in a manner that meets ethical standards. According to Vincent Ruggiero’s Thinking Critically About Ethical Issues, moral judgement is the last step in the study of any ethical issue (Ruggiero 82). As Ruggiero points out, with philosophical terminology and case studies, the careful analysis of ethical issues through detailed steps is necessary to produce moral judgement without jumping to an anecdotal conclusion (Ruggiero 88-89). The identification of relevant moral criteria, such as ideals, obligations, and consequences, is  crucial. Ruggiero further explains the importance of this step; one of the three criteria is usually of greater importance than the others based on the philosopher’s argument and the ethical issue at hand (Ruggiero 86-87). Third, thought put towards potential courses of action is important since any moral situation can have multiple courses of action which differ based on emphasis put on the implications of action, consequentialism, the action itself, deontology, the character itself, virtue theory, or a combination of some or all (Ruggiero 87). Finally, the ultimate step is the presentation of moral judgement by the philosopher, which I will save for the end as I mention the details, criteria, alternative actions, and lastly my own moral judgement regarding who should be responsible for multiple incidents involving McDonald’s coffee and which consequential actions should be taken to increase utility for most people.

This peculiar, complex case involved seventy-nine-year-old Stella Liebeck, a consumer of McDonald’s who spilled a cup of hot coffee purchased from a drive through window. She sued the company and was hospitalized for her injuries. The jury eventually awarded Liebeck with $160,000 in compensatory damages and $480,000 in punitive damages. Most ordinary people thought that the case epitomized the excesses of a legal system out of control, while conservatives believed that the case shows the consumer’s failure to admit a mistake. Liebeck partook in something she did not expect to order at McDonald’s: a week’s worth of hospital care due to third-degree burns and skin grafting. Due to the franchise’s refusal to pay her medical bills, she went to court and requested $300,000. McDonald’s company lawyers argued that the coffee was not hot and that it was the consumer’s fault. The jury, however, focused on the temperature of McDonald’s coffee and 700 past customer complaints pertaining to coffee burns. In response to these injuries, McDonald’s put warning labels on its cups and designed a tighter-fitting lid for them, but the new lid acted as a problem for Liebeck since she tried to open the coffee between her legs. In the end, the punitive damage award acted as a cautionary tale for the fast-food industry by illuminating the need for more information and warnings that pertain to packaging, food health, and safety concerns (Torres-Burtka).

Obligations, ideals, and consequences arise from this case. As a consumer, Liebeck is required to provide payment for the items McDonald’s provides, and she is also required to respect whatever guidelines exist through the characteristic human value of sociability. Since Liebeck has to pay and respect guidelines, McDonald’s must make the transaction as convenient as possible while providing enough information through Kant’s respect for persons which defines moral actions as those that treat people “as an end and not merely as a means” (Ruggerio 94). Ideals are also important in this case since they differ and conflict between parties. Liebeck demonstrates an ideal of fairness through providing the franchise with money for coffee; she also demonstrates the ideal of integrity by going to court. The franchise demonstrates a conflicting ideal of justice and integrity by not agreeing to pay Liebeck’s hospital bills since it believes that it has done enough to inform consumers. The consequences are also important in this case since McDonald’s having to pay can be seen as a utilitarian warning for other franchises such as Denny’s and Burger King; it focuses on right actions being those that produce the most utility for the most people. Additionally, the consequence of Liebeck winning the court case can be seen as an act of utilitarianism for the public and the 700 people who also submitted complaints about the coffee. Consequences lie more heavily than obligations or ideals because they have a lasting impact.

There are a few courses of action for agents involved in this case. One would be to view the occurrence as Liebeck’s fault, which would negatively impact her obligation of payment and ideal of fairness since she would have to pay for both coffee and hospital bills. Moreover, this option would positively impact the franchise’s obligation of convenience and ideal of justice since it did what was required by providing a sealed container of coffee. Another course of action would be to sue the franchise, which would positively impact Liebeck’s ideal of integrity by supporting what she believes is morally correct. However, this option would negatively impact the franchise’s obligation of convenience and ideal of integrity due to the court case, since the franchise believes that the consumer is at fault. An additional choice would be for McDonald’s to ignore the consumer’s claims, which would positively influence its own obligation of convenience and ideal of justice and integrity, which potentially is not necessarily a new action due to the 700 complaints mentioned previously. This course would negatively impact Liebeck due to her ideals of integrity and fairness, as would a lack of reimbursement, which would be a negative response to her unfortunate position. One last option would be for the franchise to go to court and pay the required amount, a course of action that would positively impact Liebeck’s ideal of integrity and obligation of payment while negatively impacting McDonald’s obligation of convenience and ideals of justice and integrity. Overall, this option acts as a utilitarian response for both future consumers and other franchises.

In conclusion, I would like to offer my own ethical and moral judgement on the case in question. The most acceptable alternative is for McDonald’s to update its information and safety guidelines pertaining to the food and beverages that it serves which would, hopefully, benefit most people. I draw this conclusion by thinking specifically about the consequences of the case and act utilitarianism. Consequentialism focuses on the effects of a given action which determine moral worth, while act utilitarianism focuses on actions that satisfy and benefit the most people with the least amount of suffering. I believe that the most people would benefit from McDonald’s, and other franchises, including more cautionary information, safety regulations, and warnings to create even more convenience for consumers. While I can see how this course of action would add a bit more work for franchises at the beginning, it would hopefully reduce the number of lawsuits and complaints from consumers in the future. In my opinion, if McDonald’s performs the work of including warnings such as: “Do not put coffee between legs,” “Our coffee might be a bit hot at first, so sip until ready to consume at a faster rate,” and “Put coffee in a cup holder until ready to consume,” similar issues will not occur as often. While this case does not seem too complicated, I think it can analogically relate to rules and cautionary warnings that appear in many spaces. Many amusement parks, for example, have waivers and signs with safety regulations. While riding a roller coaster is much different from drinking a cup of coffee, clarity is necessary for both, even if reading said warnings is a bit uninteresting (Ruggiero 115-6). These notices and instructions produce the most useful for the most people because they are available to everyone, whether they read them or not, which increases fault on the individual and decreases fault of the franchise or business at hand. This is the best course of action due to the many complaints pertaining to McDonald’s coffee from Liebeck and the 700 other consumers who somehow suffered from a lack of information pertaining to the coffee’s temperature. As we witness the rise of more and more contemporary moral issues as time progresses, it is important to put opinions to the side and allow for ethical analyses of problems throughout the world.

Works Cited

Ruggiero, Vincent. Thinking Critically About Ethical Issues. Mountain View, Mayfield Publishing Company, 1997.

Torres-Burtka, Allison. “Liebeck vs. McDonald’s.” American Museum of Tort Law, http://www.tortmuseum.org/liebeck-v-mcdonalds/. Accessed 25 Apr. 2024.