Scientists Discover Wrong Way To Eat A Reese’s
Hershey, PA (AP) – Researchers studying the properties of the Reese’s Peanut Butter Cup have apparently concluded that, contrary to claims made in the 1990’s, more reliable, recent data demonstrate that one can in fact directly commit a moral offense by the manner in which he goes about consuming one such candy unit.
In an article to be published in the upcoming issue of the Food journal, an industry periodical, a team of food scientists and philosophers tested diverse scenarios and assigned them a moral score based on the number of fatalities, the amount of suffering inflicted, the extent or property theft or deprivation, and the scale of rights violations that took place as a direct, unequivocal result of eating a Reese’s. Initial results were disappointing, but after several months the researchers were able to confirm that eating a Peanut Butter Cup at the same time as a raisin would constitute a breach of human morality so severe that it would render all of Creation a pointless, sadistic Hell.
According to the article, several members of the team felt compelled to resign from the project even when all phases of the research were conducted under tightly controlled circumstances to minimize the spread of evil. “Two researchers declined to continue their participation upon discovering that the testing was to include the use of raisins,” wrote lead author Joseph Mengele, a noted expert on the limits of human suffering. “A further four recused themselves after witnessing the horrors inherent in the use of raisins.” The researchers who resigned were replaced by others, which required a further round of insensitivity training, adding two weeks to the process.
One of the difficulties in the research involved the definition of “wrong” to be used in determining the accuracy of the older claim. The researchers at first applied a litmus test of pain or mental anguish, but encountered difficulty in assessing such factors in contexts such as masochism. Similarly, attempts to define violation or neglect of consent broke down in the face of benevolent instances of same, such as some parenting decisions.
A second hurdle involved pinning down whether a given violation was inherent in the eating, or merely the result of imposed or surrounding circumstances. For example, eating the Reese’s to deprive a starving child of sustenance was found not to answer to “wrong,” since the level of enjoyment involved in eating the candy outweighed the concurrent evil that it produced, and because a starving child’s digestive system would likely be unable to handle the rich, creamy, heavenly sensation of biting, chewing, and sensuously swallowing a Reese’s Peanut Butter Cup.
The last point was not clear from the outset, as the team examined the possibility that providing the starving child with the pleasure was a preferable course of action even it it resulted in death. However, they eventually found more convincingly that greater good would come of providing the pleasure to one who would use the energy and reward it provided to experience even more of same, thus resulting in a greater overall goodness quotient.
A similar study in 2001 regarding pizza also found vanishingly few circumstances in which the food’s consumption was a moral offense, restricting wrongness to pizza topped with anchovies.