A Reminder to Paws Before Your Next Good Deed, or It Could Bite You in the End

‍

‍

While I generally write about work topics, ethics is probably one of the broadest, but least discussed of the 10 skills companies want. As such, we can often find ethical examples beyond pure business topics. Such is the case with the dog industry in Korea.

At times dogs were considered appropriate for human consumption in Korea. (Despite the stereotype, it was not generally considered to be widespread. Buddhism, popular in Korea, advocates for vegetarianism, obviously excluding the consumption of dogs.) In the modern world canine consumption is considered inhuman and offensive. (While I’m neither advocating for dogs to be eaten nor not eating pigs or chickens, it should be noted that pigs are as smart as dogs, and in some cases cognitively superior. So the decision to eat pig and not dogs is arbitrary based on intelligence. For many other factors, such as the nature of canine domestication is what differentiates them. Of course some people do keep pigs as pets. People also keep chickens as pets, and while not as smart as dogs, they can recognize individuals and form relationships with them.) For years many people have pushed Korea to outlaw eating dogs. (Before you get so high and mighty to the Dog and Cat Meat Trade Prohibition Act of 2018 it was legal to eat dogs and cats in many states in the US, and it still seems to be legal in parts of Europe.)

Putting all that aside, on January 9th, 2024 Korea banned slaughtering dogs or meat, coming into full effect after three years. That’s take it as a given that this is ethically “good” because it improves animal welfare.

On the one hand, the impact is minimal because most people don’t eat dog meat, despite the legality of it. On the other hand, stopping the trade has implications. For one, family run businesses are being shut down. While they have three years to transition their options are limited. It’s not like they can sell the business, since it is becoming illegal. They are just been put out of business with no support from the government. Imagine if the government suddenly banned all taxi and ride-share drivers. Overnight, people lose their source of income.

There’s also the issue of what to do with the estimated half a million dogs in the slaughterhouses today (source). Killing the dogs seems counter to the goal of the bill. Turning them out on the streets is also cruel. It’s also not clear they can be adopted; the same BBC article notes that breeds used for eating are large (to maximize meat) and unfriendly, the opposite of what urbanized Koreans want. In other words, doing the right thing has a cost. A cost to the companies and a cost to the dogs; ultimately both wind up being a cost to society.

Again, I’m not arguing against the law. The point is doing the right thing can have secondary effects. While we talk about making the pie bigger in negotiations for win-win opportunities, in some cases, and with policies in many cases, some groups do better and others worse. None of thi should prevent us from doing “good” things; however, it’s important to remember that there are often consequences, some negative, from those actions. Depending on your school or thought (virtual ethics, deontology, consequentialism), you may doing the “right” thing enough (virtual ethics) or you may feel the net result is what matters and need to address the consequences (consequentialism).

I hope you continue to do the right thing. I also hope, however you define “right” that you’ve thought it through and do what’s right in your school of thought. Unfortunately, no one ever said the right thing was easy to do.

‍