the philosophy of the hamburger

Three questions which come up regarding the burger.
1. what makes a hamburger a hamburger? The hamburger, or the bun? (or some combination thereof)
2. does the addition of condiments make a hamburger better?
3. does the consumption of a better burger make one a better person?

To the first, the answer is clearly the meat. The bun itself does not matter. It can be of weck, of whole wheat, even of wonderbreadesque consistency, where it feels as though one is biting into the foam used in upholstery. Even two slices of bread, if one is desperate and/or holding to a tradition can a bun make.
It is the meat, for the meat is called hamburger. The buns within which the meat is contained are called hamburger buns: buns for hamburger. The shape and rough geometry of the meat is a patty[1], which when made of hamburger becomes a hamburger patty: a patty-shape constructed of hamburger.

The bun (or acceptable bun substitute, as noted above) and the shape of the patty are necessary identifying features of the hamburger, but the meat is what truly defines it. The patty of ground ribeye steak is a steakburger, the patty of turkey is a turkey burger, and the patty of ground vegetables, beans and soy held together by processes unknown is an abomination.

The ground beef is hamburger, and the assembly of that hamburger between the bun, with or without condiments is a hamburger.[2] A, as in one of many, as in that which points to the general idea of a hamburger.

So too, must we realize that the meat will make or break the hamburger. A good burger is at least 15% fat pre-cooking. To say otherwise is gustatory heresy of the most unforgivable nature. The rendered fat from a good burger will make even the most dry and cardboardlike buns into something acceptable. One can not say the reverse is true. A perfect bun cannot overcome a dry, flavorless patty.[3]

This assumes that a hamburger patty and bun does a hamburger make. Though this fulfills the basic requirements of being a hamburger, one is remiss in their duty if they do not consider adding condiments to said burger. Condiments can make a decent burger better by adding texture, substance, flavor, contrast in flavor and/or moisture. We would say that these help the burger achieve a certain arete, but that arete can be separated. A hamburger may be comparable to a cheeseburger, but the cheeseburgers are best compared amongst themselves.[4] A condiment may make a burger better, but it also slightly shifts the criteria on which its excellence is judged.

It should be mentioned that certain condiments may be added to a burger, and will necessarily make it worse. Any dijon mustard[5], any cheese which may properly be summed up as 'fancy-schmancy', any Kobe beef, any inferior quality tomato, lettuce or onion will all make a worse burger. Some of this is by lowering the overall quality of the meal, some by bastardizing and hybridizing what is at heart a simple food meant to be enjoyed by all. Similarly, there are certain properties which make a burger better, such as if one orders that burger at In-n-Out where all food is served with a side of angelic choir.

A burger is meant to be enjoyed by all, but individual tastes make discussion of a 'better burger' difficult. All things being equal, we can say the following: if you can recognize a difference between burgers, and prefer one to another, choose the burger you prefer more.[6] The better person is one who does not do the bare minimum. If you can do more, do it. If you can eat food which gives you more pleasure to eat it, eat it. Especially if it's at In-N-Out

---------------------
1. The existence of the White Castle slider shape (which is square rather than mostly circular) is not a weakness of this theory: we differentiate between the slider and the hamburger just as we differentiate between the candy bar and the 'fun size' candy bar. One is not to be mistaken for the other, though identical in content.
2. though for burgers of true greatness, 'the hamburger' may be the appropriate nomenclature.
3. This is related to the origin of the bun and all sandwiches in general. The bread was meant to transfer the sandwich contents to the mouth, while ensuring that the hands remained clean enough to continue playing cards. Though necessary, the bun is merely a vessel for the contents of the sandwich.
4. Adding further subcategories for things such as 'cheeseburgers with lettuce and tomato' increases the accuracy of the comparison but decreases the usefulness of the comparison. We must generalize to a certain degree, for the category of 'burgers with romaine lettuce, vidalia onions and grass-fed beef made on a certain grill by a certain chef on days in which he was in a good mood' is not useful to many people.
5. the President's favorite! Spicy brown mustard might have been acceptable, but who are we to judge?
6. If the 'better burger' costs significantly more, and you are not willing to pay that amount for superior quality because its 'not worth it', that's an acceptable reason.