Everywhere you
look, there is always something being advertised. It is no joke when they say
that the amount of advertising
and marketing people are
exposed to have exploded over the past years. Recent studies show that on
average, “a person sees 3,000 ads per day.” Advertising is everywhere, from gas
pumps, billboards and movie theatres, to sporting events and park
benches—advertising is impossible to avoid. The more advertising we see, the
harder it is to not get sucked into the false messages they send out to people.
When it comes down to it, we already know that the whole point of advertising
is to pretty much influence the perceptions customers hold about a certain
brand and draw attention to the company that is advertising it. It’s all about brand awareness.
So how does my
perception, as well as other perceptions people have of advertising relate to the
classical ethical theories that we hear so much about? In my opinion, the
best theories that can be related to advertising are egoism, utilitarianism and Kant’s theory of deontology.
Based on the class lectures, we learned that Egoism, which is known to most as
the “Enlightened Self-Interest”, states that “an act is morally right if, and only
if, it best promotes one’s long-term self-interest.” The way I see it,
advertisers make their products appealing to people so that it seems it’s
serving the interest of the consumer, when in reality it’s only a selfish gain
for the producer of the product. So is this morally right? Some would argue
that there is nothing wrong with this, but I beg to differ. The consumer
assumes that the product was made with their interest in mind, when we all know
that most of the products being sold never are what they seem to be. If someone
sees a make-up
ad that “proves to clear up skin”, they might really come to believe that
it works. In the end, when they see that it didn’t work for them, they end up
with nothing and the advertiser already received the profit from the product
that was sold. So the product never really promoted “long-term self-interest”.
It was very short term, especially for the consumer. However, in the long run,
it will be short term for the producer as well when people start to realize
that not all of the advertised products give the results they are looking for.
On the other
side, advertising can relate to utilitarianism as well. Utilitarianism states,
“the rightness or wrongness of any action can be judged entirely in terms of
its consequences and that the right course of action promotes the greatest
pleasure of the least pain.” Utilitarianism also believes that the only
important thing is the Greater Good. Under the utilitarianism theory, I feel
like advertisement deception is morally admissible if “the course of the action
promotes the greatest pleasure of the least pain. So you want the outcome
results to be with the greater overall happiness. For example, when an
advertiser sells a product, if the end results makes more people happy than
upset, it would be morally ok. Once again though, some would argue that it
wouldn’t be acceptable in certain situations.
So where does
Kant’s theory of deontology fit into all of this? Deontology, which is also
known as means-based ethics, or non-consequentialism, states, “Certain
underlying principles are right or wrong, regardless of their consequences.”
German philosopher Immanuel Kant can be associated with the best-known
deontological theory. The Good Will. According to Kant, “there is only
one thing which is unqualifiedly and intrinsically good, and that is a good
will.” (http://bellevuecollege.edu/artshum/materials/phil/Updegrove/Fall05/100/EthicalTheoryofKant.htm).
In Kantian ethics, we can say “a person
is being ethical if they are motivated by a moral obligation as determined by a
set of universal laws” (http://bellevuecollege.edu/artshum/materials/phil/Updegrove/Fall05/100/EthicalTheoryofKant.htm
).
There are
several ads that have been used as examples in the past. One that comes to mind
and is quite old is the McDonald’s
ad when the boy opens his lunch box only to realize that it’s empty.
Everyone starts to give him looks of pity and assume the boy’s parents forgot
to pack his lunch. This all changes when the boy’s father shows up with a
McDonald’s meal. All of the kids appear to be jealous and upset that they
didn’t get a meal from McDonald’s. The whole point that the ad was trying to
get across was that if a parent gives them a meal from McDonald’s, they must
love and care for them. This ad is wrong in so many ways. First of all, it uses
children and their sadness to attract consumers. It’s targeting parents and
showing them that they are allowed to buy their child’s love with McDonald’s
fast food. This definitely does not classify as “good will”.
So whether we
agree with advertisements, they will always be around and continue to influence
the way people view products. Although I find some to be more ethical than
others, some will find all of them to be ethical where as others may
not find any to be ethical. It all depends on everyone’s individual opinion on
how they view things.
Sources:
