The Ethics of Gift Cards

In several earlier posts in this space I have written against the use of gift cards for both high-priority occasions and high-priority people, both because of the inherent business issues with such purchases (such as the company you bought the card from going out of business before the gift can be redeemed), and because of the high level of convenience involved. I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with sending your third cousin’s son (whom you haven’t seen in three years) a gift card for his birthday, or with getting your friend the knitter a gift card for a large supply of yarn (since you don’t know what colors she needs or anticipates needing for her next project); I’m just saying that getting your wife a gift card from the supermarket around the corner for your Anniversary is unwise unless you like sleeping on the couch. If it’s really the thought that counts, a gift that says “I spent less than fifteen seconds picking out your gift!” is going to be inherently problematic. Unless it’s a gift card for a very large amount of junk food, in which case we’ve got a whole other level of grey area on our hands…

A story that turned up in the Sunday Mail of Queensland documents several strenuous objections to the KFC $500 gift card available in Australia and various other parts of the world as being health hazards. The argument is that since $500 is enough for 14 buckets of chicken or at least 50 to 70 individual meals at current prices, such a gift card would enable the recipient to enjoy KFC meals once a week for a year, or possibly even more often, instead of the once per month or once per calendar quarter that nutritionists would prefer. While there’s no explanation given as to why this would be worse than gifts of bio-toxins (alcohols) or refined sugars (any form of candy), you could actually argue that giving someone a present that is actively bad for their health – or at least enables them to do things that are actively bad for their health – is not a good choice. The question that struck me is, does this actually involve an ethical dilemma, either for the consumer or for the company?

Fast-food companies have for years pointed out that no one is forcing their customers to purchase or consume the company’s wares, and that if you don’t limit yourself exclusively to foods with high fat, carbohydrate or cholesterol contents, their meals are not going to do you any real harm. In the case of high-dollar gift cards, companies like KFC will generally point out that such a gift would enable a large family to eat out once each month, or permit a single individual to enjoy a hot meal once each week, and that if all of your other meals are relatively healthful, this will not harm anyone. KFC in particular will point out that they do offer food that, if not exactly healthy, is certainly no worse for you than any other dining-out experience would be, so blaming them for your poor eating habits (or those of your recipient) is hardly just. But the real question is, if these gift cards have the potential for actual harmful misuse, should they be offered or advertised as gifts?

A similar point could be raised with the consumer. If you are giving a KFC gift card to someone who can not afford to eat out very often, and who will only order the relatively healthy items off the menu (and enjoy them in moderation) are you really doing any harm? More to the point, perhaps, if you give such a gift card to someone who you know will use it just to purchase deep-fried items in bulk, are you responsible for their poor eating habits and/or lack of self-control? Or, to put it another way, do companies have any ethical responsibility to only market gift items that are part of a healthy lifestyle? Do private citizens have any ethical responsibility to only give gifts that are actively good for the person getting them? Or should companies market what people want to buy, and let people make their own decisions about what to consume, even if those decisions will ultimately kill them?

It’s worth thinking about…