Ethics of Business and Advertising - Assignment Example

Ethics of Business and Advertising There are two main methods that advertisers utilize in order to affect the desires of a consumer. In the firstmethod, known as informational advertising, the consumer reflects and decides on their wants through a rational process based on the attributes of the product.1 An example of this would be a comparative advertisement for a carpet cleaner. Often in these types of advertisements, two soiled areas will be cleaned using different brands of carpet cleaner. The advertisement may show the varying effectiveness of these products. Assuming that the advertised product is more effective than the competing brand, the consumer can rationally conclude that the advertised brand is the optimal choice. The second method, known as propagandistic advertising, bypasses this reflective process through a manipulative strategy of associating symbols to relevant emotions and desires. This advertising strategy is a form of propaganda as it draws on symbols that are entrenched in the culture. These symbols have a strong influence on an individual’s needs, desires, and values. Advertisers then attribute a product to these symbols in order that the aforementioned needs, wants, and values are now directed toward the product.2 An example of this would be advertisements for fashion and beauty. Often these advertisements include images of individuals that fit the archetypal model of beauty in a given society. These symbols induce powerful emotional responses from the consumer due to the fact that they have deep cultural importance (i.e. in many occidental cultures beauty is equated to success).3 Advertisers then attach their products to these symbols in order to increase consumer desire for their products. Thus in order to be successful (beautiful) a consumer must buy product X. The researcher believes that advertisers that use the propagandistic approach infringe on the autonomy of the consumer due to the fact that such advertising is resistant to an individual’s self-reflection or rational processes. There are a number of objections to the idea that propagandistic advertising is a threat to autonomy. Proponents of this stance argue that while culture often places a number of desires, beliefs, and values that an individual may not have, it does not logically follow that culture is a threat to autonomy as individuals are able to maintain their autonomy in most cultures. Thus, proponents argue as propagandistic advertising may confer such desires, beliefs, and values much the same way as culture, it also does not threaten autonomy.4 In addition to this, culture does not usually involve people attempting to convince or accept values or beliefs that they don’t agree. While enculturation is about the reproduction of values and desires, the relationship of the advertiser to such values does not require the individual to accept what is being portrayed thus allowing the consumer to have a degree of choice.5 It has been proposed that propagandist advertising is unethical due to the fact that it undermines autonomy. Falk argues that an essential aspect of maintaining one’s autonomy is to maintain and govern their choices through self-reflection and deliberation about relevant desires, beliefs, and values.6 There is a distinct divergence between autonomy and freedom of choice. Consider the following argument. Relevant desires, beliefs, and values including inherent cultural symbols leads to certain desires in an individual which then leads to deliberation and decision-making and ultimately action. Proponents of Locke’s views on autonomy argue that a central right of all individuals is the negative right to freedom, also known as liberty. Liberty is the right for an individual to determine their own voluntary choices as opposed to being influenced by manipulation and coercion.7 These forces eliminate the link between free choice and action. If this link is protected then there is not a direct violation of one’s rights and therefore no injustice. However, in propagandistic advertising, this link is often absent or greatly diminished as the deliberative process is often bypassed for the consumer as they make their choice. Manipulation of one’s desires such as is the case in propagandistic advertising interferes with autonomy however this process does not directly interfere with an individual’s liberty.8 In this sense, an individual is still able to freely choose despite the fact that their desires and values may be manipulated. This is the argument that many companies take when defending their advertising practices. They maintain that ultimately it is still the choice of the consumer whether or not they buy a product. Essentially the argument states that there is not injustice in manipulating values and desires and in addition to this; there is not an inherent right to autonomy. Companies utilize propagandistic advertising in order to manipulate and coerce consumers into buying products by associating an individual’s wants and desires with symbols related to a given product or products. In his book, The Affluent Society (1958), John Kenneth Galbraith posited that advertising was one element within a process known as the dependence effect. This process both creates and satisfies the wants of the consumer. Galbraith argues that this process occurs through the emulation from which consumer X’s desire to stay ahead of consumer Y makes X desire products that are produced and sold to Y.9 Propagandistic advertising creates a direct link between production and consumer desires by creating consumer wants that did not previously exist.10 Galbraith states that in addition to advertising, propagandist methods are also effective in competitive strategy.11 While the traditional perspective of advertising maintains that both instruction and guidance for goods flows from the consumer to the market to the producer, Galbraith rejects this and posits a reversal of this orthodox belief system. He argues that companies control their markets and control market behaviour by shaping social attitudes in a manner that is most profitable to the company.12 Companies shape consumer behaviour by managing particular demands in a given market.13 2.) Unintentional job discrimination is an act of injustice that is predicated upon a decision against an individual or group of employees that is not derived from their individual values.14 A decision that is unintentionally discriminatory is based upon the ability of an individual to perform a particular job, seniority, or other morally justifiable qualifications. In addition to this, a decision that is unintentionally discriminatory is reliant on evaluations of merit that are both suspect and arbitrary.15 Such a decision may be consistent with a prior set of similar decisions by relevant companies and this pattern may also occur in a society in which job discrimination is either overtly or covertly supported by decision makers.16 Unintentional job discrimination has both harmful and negative effects on the interests of employees and may cost them jobs and future promotions. Legal precedents were enacted in order to minimize discrimination of employees. The unemployment act of 1933 stated that when employing individuals, no discrimination could be made on account of race, colour, or set of beliefs.17 While unintentional job discrimination may often have a negative impact on employees, an often-debated aspect of this discourse is whether such discrimination is unjust. There are a number of historical and psychological perspectives that discuss the idea of unintentional job discrimination. A number of psychological studies regarding nature and causes of discriminatory behaviour suggest that unintentional discrimination often includes racial or sexual prejudice, false stereotypes, as well as other types of morally unjustifiable attitudes. In a 2001 study, Payne, Lambert, and Jacoby found that the impact of race was mediated exclusively through an unintentional accessibility bias. The researchers also found that when participants were required to respond rapidly to various stimuli (between faces from different races of people), an effect was elicited by a reduction in controlled discrimination among these stimuli.18 They also found that calling attention to race increased the stereotype accessibility bias, apart from whether race was made salient with the intention to either use or avoid the influence of race.19 There is a history of significant discrimination by the Federal Housing Administration towards African-Americans. In a 2005 study, Gordon argued that the policies of the FHA systematically discriminated against African-Americans. The FHA produced guidelines that were predicated upon the idea that racial groupings directly influenced the overall value of properties.20 These polices directly affected the levels of wealth that individuals were able to accumulate and because these divisions were based on racial factors the overall distribution of education and job training was in some sense institutionally determined as well.21 In their study, Hurtado et al. (1999) found that there are a number of restrictions of access to higher education for women and people of colour.22 This inequality would lead to unintentional job discrimination, as fewer members from these categories would be able to attain necessary skills for a number of jobs.23 In this case, a particular company may not intentionally discriminate against a specific group or groups of people, however due to the inequality of education and training, the company would be more likely to choose candidates from a certain group over another (educated vs. non-educated groups). The researcher believes that unintentional job discrimination is unjust as it is a reflection of institutional prejudice and inequality. To determine injustice, it is necessary to consider both the moral and legal aspects of this concept. From a moral perspective, if one considers both the values and ideology that the society puts forward regarding equality and merit, it is also necessary to accept that while each individual may be assessed regarding their abilities and experience, in order to create an environment from which individuals possess the same choices for pursuing education and job training, the society must advocate for equality of choice and opportunity on a moral basis. From a legal perspective, while a number of laws and legal actions have been enacted in order to reduce levels of job discrimination, there is a significant discriminatory framework from which companies in the free market base their decisions regarding employees. For example, while company X may have no distinct policies or biases against a particular race or gender, and while laws may be in place to minimize job discrimination, in order for X to compete with company Y it is necessary for X to hire the most trained and qualified individual for the job. This may result in an unintentional bias towards a particular group thus creating an unintentional form of job discrimination. 4.) While an individual may consider a number of ethical obligations when they work or participate in a large organization, perhaps the three most important factors are obligations of justice, equality, and altruism. An individual may be obliged to adhere to and maintain agreements with other employees and they may have the obligation to conduct fair and objective interactions with others in their day-to-day vocational conduct. The individual is obliged to interact with others in a decent and straightforward manner. These obligations are defined by spatial parameters. In other words, the individual is obliged to conduct these interactions with others whom they work with on an immediate basis. Finally, the individual is obliged to help others in the event of difficulty, distress, or in order to help others achieve their goals and projects. The caring organization model mirrors these ethical obligations. From this perspective, the individual views the corporation as a community, a concept that overlaps and includes the interactions of everyday life.24 However, this model is not coextensive with an individual’s private life as they interact with others that are not part of the home community. A community is comprised of a variety of intimate relationships that are defined by emotional ties and a history of interaction.25 Thus an individual’s community may include family, friends, and co-workers. The two aspects for the ethics of the caring organization include both the conservative and radical caring ethic. The conservative caring ethic includes a community that develops between the employees of a corporation.26 From this perspective, an individual’s obligations to other employees of the company are the same as their obligations to any other of their private communities. The radical caring ethic includes the development of caring and community as part of its official goals.27 From this perspective, the individual’s ethical obligations are predicated upon the support of caring values of one’s vocational community. The radical ethical obligation contests the hierarchical approach to authority that most corporations adhere.28 The Gore case exemplifies this reality and perhaps the full execution of this ethical obligation requires eliminating traditional authority-relationships and thereafter making altruistic responsibilities a top priority. A non-authoritarian method of enforcing obligations is necessary for the functioning of a company.29 The researcher believes that the conservative caring ethic of the caring organization model appears to both include and promote the aforementioned ethical obligations that are essential to a company’s functioning. This approach mirrors the social interactions and values that an individual employs in their private life. The aforementioned ethical obligations are necessary features of day-to-day functioning and can thus be grafted upon company policy as well. A number of studies have suggested that pro-social behaviour that includes interactions involving the aforementioned ethical obligations leads to improved functioning in day-to-day tasks.30 References: Barbaranelli, C., Pastorelli, C., Bandura, A., & Zimbardo, P. (2000). Pro-social foundations of children’s academic achievement. Psychological Science, 11 (4), pp. 302-306. Englis, B., Solomon, M., & Ashmore, R. (1994). Beauty before the eyes of beholders: the cultural encoding of beauty types in magazine advertising and music television. Journal of Advertising. 23 (2), pp. 49-64. Galbraith, J. (1958). The affluent society. New York: Mariner Books. Gordon, A. (2005). The creation of homeownership accessible to whites and out of reach for blacks. Yale Law Journal, 186, pp. 188-190. Jasper, M. (2008). Employment discrimination law under title VII. New York: Oxford University Press. Payne, K., Lambert, A., & Jacoby, L. (2001). Best laid plans: effects of goals on accessibility bias and cognitive control in race-based misperceptions of weapons. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38 (4), pp. 384-396. Velasquez, M. (2006). Business ethics concepts and cases sixth edition. London: Pearson. Citations: Read More