Home
/
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
/
Nibbling at Dylan Pahman’s Chick-fil-A argument
Nibbling at Dylan Pahman’s Chick-fil-A argument
Jul 18, 2025 7:46 PM

As though guided by an invisible hand Dylan Pahman and I – independently and without coordination – each posted an essay about Chick-fil-A’s philanthropic giving within minutes of one another, each with slightly different emphases. Readers may see this as a conflict; however, probing the space between these analyses helps make sense of customer backlash, illustrates why “woke capitalism” of any variety is a miasma, and underlines that charitable decisions are best made by private individuals.

Dylan quotes Milton Friedman’s argument that, if a CEO spends corporate funds for philanthropy:

the corporate executive would be spending someone else’s money for a general social interest. Insofar as his actions in accord with his “social responsibility” reduce returns to stockholders, he is spending their money. Insofar as his actions raise the price to customers, he is spending the customers’ money. Insofar as his actions lower the wages of some employees, he is spending their money.

Milton Friedman’s reasoning is not entirely applicable to Chick-fil-A.

First, Friedman rightly notes that a CEO who funds a charity with the profits of a publicly held corporation spends the firm’s money, not his own. However, Chick-fil-A is a privately owned business, founded by Truett Cathy and owned by the Cathy family. pany represents their private wealth, and the family members presumably agree to these philanthropic actions, even if they reduce their individual profits. Thus, CEO Dan Cathy is not spending anyone else’s money; he is spending his own. “Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own?” (St. Matthew 20:15).

Second, I confess that, as an editor, I’m fortable with Friedman’s wording that a CEO who funds philanthropies instead of raising workers’ wages “is spending their money.” This implies that workers have a right to receive a specific wage from a specific employer (something Friedman regularly denied). If an employer pays his employees less than their productivity could earn elsewhere, they will seek out a new employer (unless they value something about their present job – benefits, hours, location, sense of purpose, personal relationships, etc. – more than money). The loss of the most productive employees will be borne by the employer. In any event, the CEO is not spending something that, by right, belongs to anyone else.

That leaves the potentially higher cost charitable giving imposes on consumers. Materially, the amount of Chick-fil-A’s giving represents such a small percentage of its profits that prices are not likely affected. Competition assures that if the chain raises its prices too high, customers will patronize another store. Theoretically, corporate charity could impose a higher cost on the segment of Chick-fil-A customers who just want a delicious sandwich and can’t get the monkey off their back at any other restaurant (although it burdens them no more than if the Cathy family priced in a profit margin large enough to give privately).

This leads us to the elephant in the chicken restaurant: Many of its customers gladly pay a higher price, because they see eating at Chick-fil-A as a means of self-expression and charity-by-proxy.

Expressing verboten views as a new consumer preference

A large segment of American Christians identify with, and eat at, Chick-fil-A precisely because its owners’ Southern Baptist beliefs find expression in their charitable donations. They are willing to pay more, because they see the brand as an extension of their own beliefs; by buying a sandwich, they are funding the causes the Cathys finance. The ability to express traditional Christian moral views, which are condemned by most organs of the culture, satisfies a felt consumer need which, if Chick-fil-A did not satisfy, another restaurant might.

By increasing brand loyalty, Chick-fil-A’s selection of charities almost undoubtedly increased its profits. Friedman notes that corporations often cater to the public by making “expenditures that are entirely justified on its own self-interest. …If our institutions, and the attitudes of the public make it in their self-interest to cloak their actions in this way, I cannot summon much indignation to denounce them.” Indeed, if such donations would increase stockholders’ profits and workers’ wages, by Friedman’s logic, wouldn’t the CEO be amiss not to make them?

It is true that consumer sentiment may be manipulated. Friedman writes that corporations which disingenuously fund uplifting causes to deflect criticism of their business practices are engaged in behavior “approaching fraud.” But what of Chick-fil-A, in which the family spends its own money on causes it truly believes in? Indeed, it is precisely the Cathy family’s private morality that stimulates both its critics and defenders. That is not fraud but authenticity, which their customers rewarded handsomely.

As I noted, about two-thirds of customers panies to take a public stance on issues and seek to do business with firms that share their private views. One of the few businesses to publicly uphold traditional values seems to have stepped back, while none of those who revile such values ever do.

I wish the market acted more rationally and efficiently, and I deplore the ongoing politicization of all of the things. But as Ludwig von Mises observes in Human Action:

It is a fact that people in dealing on the market are motivated not only by the desire to get food, shelter, and sexual enjoyment, but also by manifold “ideal” urges. … [W]e must not overlook the fact that in reality no food is valued solely for its nutritive power and no garment or house solely for the protection it affords against cold weather and rain. It cannot be denied that the demand for goods is widely influenced by metaphysical, religious, and ethical considerations, by aesthetic value judgments, by customs, habits, prejudices, tradition, changing fashions, and many other things. To an economist who would try to restrict his investigations to “material” aspects only, the subject matter of inquiry vanishes as soon as he wants to catch it.

While we may not share the desire to let a chicken sandwich speak a mouthful about our moral values, Mises reminds us:

[E]conomics deal[s] with the means for the attainment of ends chosen by the acting individuals. [It does] not express any opinion with regard to such problems as whether or not sybaritism is better than asceticism. [It applies] to the means only one yardstick, viz., whether or not they are suitable to attain the ends at which the acting individuals aim.

A healthy proportion of Chick-fil-A customers decided its public stance gives – or gave – them a reason to shop there. That is precisely why the Cathys’ change of funding rocked so many of their (formerly) loyal customers.

This action – Hunter Baker called it a “surrender” – may open Christians’ minds to economic truths about the purpose of business. I hope Chick-fil-A’s action disabuses these customers of the notion of outsourcing their charitable activity to a corporation.

Stop buying your way into the culture wars

Ultimately, Dylan is right that a businesses’ primary responsibility is to deliver goods or services consumers wish to buy in a way that earns shareholders the maximum profit possible through ethical means. CEOs tempted to align pany with prevailing cultural trends must constantly adjust as social mores shift.

Economic efficiency may best help people seeking to channel their money toward greater social aims. Buying products based on their social consciousness opens the door to precisely the kind of disappointment and sense of betrayal that Chick-fil-A customers say they felt this week.

Filtering charitable donations through corporations is inefficient, to say the least. Pennies on the dollar reach the causes in question. Instead of the virtue signaling that conspicuous consumption allows in a woke capitalist culture, individuals can multiply their influence by giving directly to any cause they choose.

Let corporations produce goods and services and deemphasize pet political causes. Let individual shareholders fund the charity of their choice. This depoliticizes hamburger row and gives individual consumers the freedom to purchase products primarily based on price and quality again. Then, Americans would not labor under the delusion that by wearing a particular brand name or eating mor chikin they are participating in the broad cultural struggle, manning the ramparts, or expressing their inmost ethical views one bite at a time. Instead, they would take the savings and donate it to the charity of their choice. That enhances efficiency and productivity, lowers costs, maximizes charitable donations, and lets everyone follow his own conscience freely.

That is a recipe for a prosperous, free, and virtuous people.

Alejandro. This photo has been cropped. CC BY 2.0.)

Comments
Welcome to mreligion comments! Please keep conversations courteous and on-topic. To fosterproductive and respectful conversations, you may see comments from our Community Managers.
Sign up to post
Sort by
Show More Comments
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
Did 2,362 Millionaires Get Unemployment Checks in 2009? (Answer: Yes they did.)
The Congressional Research Service (CRS), a group that works exclusively for the U.S. Congress, issued a report with one of the greatest titles I’ve ever seen on a government document: Receipt of Unemployment Insurance by e Unemployed Workers (“Millionaires”) Now the first nine words are nothing special, typical policy-wonk speak. But whoever added in the word “millionaires” with scare quotes and parentheses is a genius. Most people would have been nodding off around the word “Insurance” but seeing millionaires (that’s...
Want to Help the Poor? Promote a Free Market in Health Care
Want to help the poor? Promote a free market in health care. That’s the argument made by John C. Goodman, author of the new book Priceless: Curing the Healthcare Crisis. Timothy Dalrymple recently talked with Goodman about the best approach for restoring free-market pricing mechanisms into the market for medical care and health insurance: Aren’t there some people, however, who have little of money and lots of time, and would prefer to wait in order to receive cheaper care? There...
Markets and culture: A time to play, a time to pray
Faced with the prospect of a professional athletic career, a nearly-half million dollar salary, and a perfect lady, what’s not to like? Apparently, for Grant Desme, it was the noise and unrest of the world. Can a culture of life and the noise and tumult of the marketplace co-exist? Rev. Robert Sirico, reflecting on this, says they can, so long as it is not a place where: [C]apitalism…places the human person at the mercy of blind economic forces…What we propose,...
Counting the Profit of a Third Party Choice
Joe Carter recently highlighted the discussion at Ethika Politika, the journal of the Center for Morality in Public Life, about the value of (not) voting, particularly the suggestion by Andrew Haines that in some cases there is a moral duty not to vote. This morning I respond with an analysis of the consequences of not voting, ultimately arguing that one must not neglect to count the cost of abstaining to vote for any particular office. One issue, however, that I...
On Call with Dr. Pamela Casson
Dr. Pamela Casson, a pediatrician in Colorado Springs, knows what it means literally to be “On Call.” This week she shares with us in this video interview with Jon Hirst how she sees God working through her in her work with families, children and the world around her. Thank you Pamela for giving us an inside look at how you see your work as blessing the world. ...
Dodd-Frank: The Other Serious Threat
At least es at us head on. The greater legislative threat may be the one that most Americans have never heard of. Economist Scott Powell and Acton friend Jay Richards explain in a new piece in Barron’s: While Obamacare received more attention, the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, also known as Dodd-Frank after its Senate and House sponsors, … unleashed a new regulatory body, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, to operate with unprecedented power. Dodd-Frank became law in...
Rev. Sirico on Life, Work, and Human Flourishing
J.Q. Tomanek of Ignitum Today interviewed Rev. Sirico about life, work, human flourishing, and his new book, Defending the Free Market: JQ Tomanek: Back in the day, holiness was misinterpreted as a cleric or religious life thing. How can a lay Catholic practice their faith? What are some ways to sanctify our work as lay Catholics? Is “ora et labora” just a monk thing? Reverend Sirico: Yes, religious people are often tempted to e so “heavenly minded they are no...
Is it really ‘aid’ if it goes to relatively wealthy nations?
Alan Duncan, an aid minister in the UK, says his government is “forced” to hand over large amounts of money to the EU’s foreign aid budget, but has no say in how the money is spent. The problem is that much of the $2 billion+ “aid” money (one-sixth of the British budget) goes to projects such as making a Moroccan water park more eco-friendly, an art project in St. Petersburg, and building a hotel and plex in Barbados. Britain’s International...
How were people On Call in Culture 165 years ago?
What is so special about 1837? That was the year Abraham Kuyper was born. September 29th is his 165th birthday. So we thought we would go back to 1837 and see how people were being On Call in Culture back then. We don’t know if they were all believers on a mission to bless the world, but by seeing what was going on 165 years ago, we hope you are encouraged to engage your world in 2012! How did people...
Stop Apologizing for Our Liberties
You cannot apologize to a fanatic, says Lee Harris. It only serves to convince him that he was right all along: The last few weeks have witnessed a peculiar and disturbing spectacle: An American administration that has spent a great deal of time and energy apologizing for our liberties—in particular, for what many would regard as the foundation of all our other liberties, namely, the freedom to express our minds as we see fit. This signature freedom, of which Americans...
Related Classification
Copyright 2023-2025 - www.mreligion.com All Rights Reserved