Ovi -
we cover every issue
newsletterNewsletter
subscribeSubscribe
contactContact
searchSearch
Μονοπάτι της Εκεχειρίας  
Ovi Bookshop - Free Ebook
Stop human trafficking
Ovi Language
George Kalatzis - A Family Story 1924-1967
WordsPlease - Inspiring the young to learn
Murray Hunter: Opportunity, Strategy and Entrepreneurship
Stop human trafficking
 
BBC News :   - 
iBite :   - 
GermanGreekEnglishSpanishFinnishFrenchItalianPortugueseSwedish
Of Chicken Slaughter and NSA Wiretaps: Do We Really Want to Know? Of Chicken Slaughter and NSA Wiretaps: Do We Really Want to Know?
by Prof. Michael R. Czinkota
2013-11-18 09:42:16
Print - Comment - Send to a Friend - More from this Author
DeliciousRedditFacebookDigg! StumbleUpon

Of Chicken Slaughter and NSA Wiretaps: Do We Really Want to Know?
Kimberly A. Boeckmann
Michael R. Czinkota

The Washington Post reported on October 29, 2013 about the inhumane treatment of poultry on the processing line. Normally, the heads of birds are electrocuted first, and then their necks are cut, followed by scalding water and de-feathering process. However, one percent of the time this goes amiss, and these birds survive until they enter the boiling water Almost a million chicken a year are alive when dunked into scalding water.

pultry01_400Clearly, this article appeals to the emotions of the Post’s readers.  Some believe this inappropriate chicken mortality to be a drastic case of “inhumane” animal killings. But in reality, chicken deaths are not foremost on our minds. After all, chicken are for eating and appear to us mostly in the form of nuggets or other compressed versions. How many of us have seen live chicken apart from those on the chicken retrieval trucks? They have to die somehow, and are, for many of us, not marked by particular attention or friendship.

Take the example of the lobster. If you go to a top of the line seafood restaurant, typically you are given the option to pick out your ’personal’ lobster, live from the tank. Before it makes its way onto your plate, it will be dropped into boiling water, where, after some frantic clawing against the pot with its claws, it will die – or better- be prepared for you. Of course, lobsters can’t neigh or bark, and we’ve always had a certain fear of being attacked by their claws – so there is not too much concern.

Think about the ocean: If tuna fishermen catch some Dolphins on the side and they die, we are most unhappy – we even require ‘dolphin safe’ tuna meals, if they are to come to the United States. We mourn the wounded and grieve the injuries of dolphins, because we’ve all seen ‘Flipper”, what a cute thing. At the same time we fear and resent the great white shark, which is much more endangered than dolphins. But we all remember ‘jaws’ and know what that fish is after.

Back to the chicken:  50 years ago, you could pick out your chicken at the market where it was beheaded in front of you. The bird would run around headless until it eventually died from blood loss. At that time, all you were worried about was dinner on your plate.

The deeper focus of this whole matter is that sometimes too much information is not seen as helpful. Ultimately, we do not want to know nor do we sufficiently care about the process of how our poultry is slaughtered. As long as the bird is sufficiently cleaned and later cooked, we will not make a fuss. It will taste the same in the end and serve the same purpose of filling our stomachs.

This same procedure and ideal can be applied to the recent NSA accusations of the United States spying on foreign nations’ top officials. We simply prefer not to know and we think that foreign dignitaries should not know either, nor should they worry.  Naturally, we all assumed that such spying occurred on some level, given the advances in technology in addition to national security purposes. The time when ‘gentlemen did not read other gentlemen’s mail’ has long passed. We know what is needed and we do what needs to be done. Therefore, the question remains, were we really that surprised?

That’s what chicken have in common with the NSA. As long as they give us a good product at the end, it’s probably best not to discuss the process which leads to the product. After all, we’re all friends.

****************************************************

czinkota*Michael Czinkota researches International Business and Marketing issues at Georgetown University in Washington D.C. His book (with Ilkka Ronkainen) on International Marketing is in its 10th edition. 

 

 

boeckmann*Kimberly Boeckmann is a junior at Georgetown University’s McDonough School of Business pursuing a double major in both International Business and Management. She has been working with Professor Czinkota since January 2013.


       
Print - Comment - Send to a Friend - More from this Author

Comments(1)
Get it off your chest
Name:
Comment:
 (comments policy)

Emanuel Paparella2013-11-18 13:39:29
Indeed we should not have been surprised... I suppose another way of expressing the same idea is “don’t watch sausage being made, it is not pretty,” which is all well and good in theory: one consumes the product without fussing too much about the process of making it, as entrepreneurs in our brave new consumerist society urge us to do, consume the cosmetics, never mind how we make them, look how pretty you look with them; wear that wonderful fur, never mind that it belongs to an endangered species; all well an good, until, until the spying violates one’s personal privacy, then we don’t like the process so much any longer, and we protest, knowing full well that technology allows Big Brother to listen to us even when our phone is off the hook. But we like our smart phones too much to give them up. Some ethicists took issue with Kant when he categorically stated that one should never, never lie, not even proffer one white lie. After all white lies can be very convenient and the final product that results from a white lie may be good. Here too all is well with while lies as long as it happens to others; when we find out that we have been lied to, even if it is only a while lie or that one’s privacy has been compromised even if the conversation was an inane one, then we realize the wisdom of Kant’s categorical imperative: “never use others as a means to an end but as ends in themselves.”


© Copyright CHAMELEON PROJECT Tmi 2005-2008  -  Sitemap  -  Add to favourites  -  Link to Ovi
Privacy Policy  -  Contact  -  RSS Feeds  -  Search  -  Submissions  -  Subscribe  -  About Ovi