There is no moral difference between eating Chick-fil-A and a McChicken

"I am grateful to Fr. Ben Johnson for his thoughtful response to my recent post, 'The social responsibility of Chick-fil-A is to make delicious sandwiches.' He adds some extra nuance, but I still stand my ground." - Acton

590 reads

There are 2 Comments

Bert Perry's picture

One thing to contemplate here is that businesses like fast food seem to be a refuge from our culture's persistent credentialism and insistence on prior success.  The world today would have seen Colonel Sanders as a loser until he, at age 62, started KFC in 1952.  Colonel Sanders then ended up giving a young high school dropout (and adoptee) named Dave Thomas a chance there--Thomas of course went on to found Wendy's.  Ray Kroc was a struggling milkshake machine salesman when, at age 51, he recognized potential in a little hamburger joint owned by the McDonald brothers.  Al Copeland of Popeye's is yet another high school dropout.  Chik-Fil-A follows in that tradition, and it's worth noting that the charities supported by a lot of these entrepreneurs do really benefit those who are most in need.

For that matter, fast food is one place where someone with no skills prior to taking his first job, no high school diploma (let alone a college degree), and a poor family history can do good with his (her) life.  Now of course I don't think that too much fast food is good for us, but the fact remains that it's one place where the criteria for success is pretty objective--all about the taste, value, and timing of the food.  We can therefore applaud this bastion of opportunity, don't we think?

MIght have to get out and get me some fast food to eat today, even.

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.