The Ethics of Consumer

Production and Marketing

Chapter 6
Learning Outcomes
After reading this chapter, you should be able to:

• Identify the characteristics of the three major theories

of ethical duties of manufacturers: the contract view,
the "due care" view, and the social costs view.
• Explain why businesses have a duty to comply,
disclose, and not misrepresent or coerce.
• Understand how the duty to exercise due care
extends to design, production, and information.
• Explain the utilitarian basis of the social costs view,
and identify the major arguments against it.
• Discuss the ethical issues raised by advertising, such
as its social effects and the creation of consumer
desires.
6.1 Markets and Consumer Protection
• 1992 Figures (5th edition)
– 585,000 injuries requiring hospital treatment inflicted on children &
adults by toys, nursery equipment, playground equipment
– 322,00 people mangled using home workshop equipment
– 2,055,000 people needed emergency treatment for injuries involving
home furnishings
– 3,467,000 treated for injuries involving home construction materials
• 2003 Auto accidents: 53,270 per week
– causing 117 deaths per day
– financial losses of $479 million per day
• Laissez faire or "market" approach holds consumers will
automatically be protected from injury & other loss (due to product
breakdown, etc.) by the operations of free and competitive markets
– thanks to consumer sovereignty
• product safety features consumers want and are willing to pay for will be
produced
• producers will have to respond to consumer demand for safer products or
risk losing customers to others who do
– government interference only interferes with the working of markets and
producers' abilities to give the consumers what they want
• ends up forcing costly safety features on consumers that consumers may
not really want at the cost
– Criticism: these free market benefits falsely assume a perfectly
competitive market
• Seven defining features (review)
– distribution: numerous buyers and sellers
– openness: anyone can freely enter
– perfect information: buyers and sellers have full and perfect
information about products and prices
– interchangeable goods: goods in the market like enough to be
substitutable
– nonsubsidization: no external costs or subsidies
– rational agency: buyers and sellers are rational self interested
utility maximizers
– nonregulation: the market is unregulated
• Consumers commonly have imperfect information and make
irrational choices
– imperfect information: often consumers do not understand the
risks
» due to deceptive marketing or advertising misinforming
consumers about risks
• or simply not informing
–due to their simply lacking requisite information and expertise
–response: market mechanisms will create a market for
information consumers need & want
»in theory it would seem consumers who want information can
turn to organizations such as Consumers Union that make a
business of acquiring and selling product information
»in practice it's hard to make a go of selling this sort of
information due to
»leakage to people who don't pay: making the number of people
willing to pay too few to cover the costs of acquiring the
information
»consumers often unwilling to pay for information because
they're unable to appreciate its value before they get it
»in real world such organizations only make a go of it by relying
on contributions
• irrational agency consumers are often irrational in assessing risks
–rationalizations, denial & other interfering mechanisms: example
»"Cigarettes won't kill me
»I'll quit in a couple of years."
–rational choice involves estimating probabilities & people are bad
at this
»irrational confidence: typically underestimate the chance of being
injured by
»driving, smoking, eating high cholesterol diets
»irrational fears: overestimate the chance of being injured by
»tornados, grizzly bear attacks, suicide bombings, etc.
»personal example: friend who wouldn't wear a seatbelt because "if
my car goes into the water I don't want to be tied in and unable to
get out."
»trusting & optimistic natures: tend to believe
»we think the products we buy will work not malfunction.
»and we will use them aright
»woman I dated (once): when I asked her, "Please, fasten your
seatbelt,"
»said, "Why, are you planning to have an accident?"
»probabilistic fallacies
»gambler's fallacy: tendency to think a run of one sort of
outcome makes further outcomes of the sort less likely
»example: if a coin comes up heads three times in a row
people tend to think it's due to come up tails
»this is irrational: if it's a fair coin odds are 50/50
regardless
»if the coin isn't fair: then it's more likely to come up the
same again hasty generalization: estimating probabilities
on the basis of skewed or biased or undersized samples
»my uncle smoked all his life and lived to 100
»so probably smoking won't hurt me
»people believe they exert control over purely chance
events
»by sitting in their lucky chair or wearing their lucky hat
»pulling the arm instead of pressing the button to turn the
wheel on the slot machine
 – Furthermore: Oligopoly conditions are more the norm than the exception
• violating conditions 1 & 2, distribution & openness
• even if consumers are wise enough to want safe products,
oligopolies may be unresponsive to their wants
• Conclusion, Limitation, & Central Issue
– Conclusion: "On balance . . . it does not seem that market forces by
themselves can deal with all consumer concerns for safety, freedom
from risk, and value."
– Limitation: the world can't be made perfectly safe: producers can't be
expected to protect people from extremes of ignorance and foolishness
• people who remove safety guards from power tools
• smoke while they're pouring gasoline into their lawnmowers, etc.
– Central Issue: Where does the consumer's duty to protect their own
interests end and the manufacturer's duty to protect consumers'
interests begin?
• Three theories (going politically from right to left)
– Contract view: places the greatest responsibility on the consumer
– "due care" places more responsibility on the producer
– social costs view: places the most responsibility on the producer
• Nested character of the theories
– producer responsibilities under "social cost" include all "due care"
responsibilities
– producer responsibilities under "due care" include all "contract"
responsibilities
6.2 The Contract View of Businesses Duties to Consumers
• Summary statement
– When a customer buys a product they enter into a "sales contract" with the
firm the firm freely & knowingly agrees to give the buyer a product with
certain characteristics
• the consumer similarly agrees to pay a certain sum of money to the firm for
the product
– Rights & Duties Created
• the firm: the duty to provide a product with the specified characteristics
• the consumer: the right to receive such a product
– Reminder: Moral Conditions on Contractual Obligation
• Without which the agreement is not really a free agreement
• Moral Conditions
– Full knowledge: both parties have full knowledge of the terms of the
agreement
– Faithful representation: neither party must intentionally misrepresent other
pertinent facts
– No undue influence: neither party must enter the contract under duress or
undue influence.
• Consequent four main moral duties of a business to its customers
– Compliance: to comply with the terms of the contract
– Disclosure: to fully disclose the nature of the product
– True representation: not to misrepresent the nature of the product or
agreement
– No undue influence: not to persuade the customer to buy under duress
The Duty to Comply
• Most basic duty that a business owes its customers
– to provide the customer with a product that lives up to those claims
• the business expressly made about it
• which induced the customer to buy it
– plus any reasonably implied claims
• which formed the customers understanding of what they were
purchasing and led to freely contract to buy it
• Sturdivant's list of key types of implied claims as concerning
– Reliability
– Service Life
– Maintainability
– Safety
• Reliability: concerns whether the product will function as the customer
has been led to expect
– Issue concerning devices containing many interdependent
components
• the more interdependent components a product incorporates
• the greater reliability is demanded of each component
• since the probability of the whole functioning correctly is the
product of the parts.
• example a unit with four components each with a 10% chance of
failing has a 34% chance of failing: .9 * .9 * 9 * .9 = .66
 • Service Life: concerns the length of time the product will
continue to function effectively in the manner in which the
customer has been led to understand it will function.
– Understandings concerning service life:
• customer generally expected to understand that service life
will depend on use: on the amount of wear and tear the
customer subjects the product to
• can rely on explicit guarantees from the manufacturer or
seller
• obsolescence: seller who knows that a product will become
obsolete
– has a duty to correct any mistaken beliefs the buyer may
be expected to form concerning the service life that may
be expected
• Maintainability: concerns how easily the product can be kept in
operating condition and repaired (if needs be)
– Frequently such claims are spelled out in express warranties
– Implicit claims by the seller of continued maintainability after the
warranty expires
• implied by the seller
• reasonably understood by the buyer
• Product Safety: concerns the degree of risk associated with using the product.
– Acceptable known levels of risk is the operative concept
• no product is absolutely risk free
• the issue is what levels of risk are acceptable or reasonable
– A product is safe if its attendant risks are known
• and judged to be acceptable by the buyer
• in view of the benefits the buyer has been led to believe they will obtain
from the product
– obligation of the seller: to provide a product that involves only those risks
they represent it to the customer as having
– National Product Safety Commissions Checklist: a risk is unreasonable
when
• consumers do not know it exists
• though aware of it, they are unable to properly estimate its frequency or
severity
• consumers don't know how to cope with it & are thus likely to incur harm
unnecessarily
• when the risk could be eliminated at a cost the customer would willingly
pay
– if they knew the facts
– and had the choice
– Summary: the seller has a duty to provide a product with a level of risk no
higher than they have expressly or implicitly represented to the customer,
which the customer has freely and knowingly agreed to assume.
The Duty of Disclosure
• The seller has a duty to disclose
– the terms of the sales contract
– information about the product that would reasonably influence the
customer's purchase decision
• risks: included by all accounts
• others (more stringent views)
– performance characteristics & costs of operation
– product ratings & applicable standards
– Basis of the duty: the moral force of contracts derives from their
being free agreements
• freedom depends on knowledge
– the more the buyer knows about the product and competing products
– the more one can say the buyer's agreement was voluntary
• Criticism & Reply
– Criticism: provision of product information is itself a service for
which the customer should pay
– Reply: if the buyer had to bargain for relevant information
• the information would be less readily obtainable: a lot less
• and the resulting contract would be less free: a lot less
The Duty not to Misrepresent
• Misrepresentation is to nondisclosure as commission to omission
– nondisclosure: not telling
– misrepresentation: lying
• A seller misrepresents a product when they represent it in a way
– intended to get the buyer to believe something about the product
– that they (the seller) know is false
• May be express or implicit
– express: e.g., a dryer marked "NEW" when it's reconditioned
– implicit: the reconditioned dryer is placed unmarked, on the floor,
amidst several new models
• Rogue's gallery of misrepresentative practices
– brand name look-alikes: it's a "Rollex"
– fronting the expensive ingredient (SILK blend)
– fictitious regular prices to give the impression the item is marked
down
– higher prices than advertised
– "bait and switch"
– paid testimonials
The Duty not to Coerce
• undue influence or coercion is exercised by the seller, typically, when the seller takes
advantage of a buyer's fear or emotional stress to extract an agreement that the buyer
would not agree to if thinking rationally
– Other factors that the seller has a duty not to exploit: gullibility, immaturity, ignorance
– alleged examples
• the unscrupulous funeral director who oversells
• the "high pressure" bridal salesman who extracted a binding agreement from my
niece without her mother being there
Problems with the Contractual Theory
• Chief criticism: it's based on unrealistic assumptions:
– that manufacturers who really know the product enter into direct agreement with the
customer
• in reality there are usual many levels of middle-merchants
– who may know no more about the product than the consumer
– and sometimes less
• contractarian reply: doctrine of indirect agreements
– manufacturers promote their products through their own advertising
campaigns
– these advertisements supply the claims that customers rely on in their
purchase decisions
– the intermediate retailers merely function as "conduits" for the
manufacturers product
– so, the manufacturers forge both direct & indirect agreements
» directly with the retailer
» indirectly with the customer
» that sales contracts naturally provide protection to the consumer
• underlying idea: contracts will adequately protect the customer's interest by
underwriting claims against the manufacturer for product defects
• but contractual disclaimers can be used to nullify contractual obligations of the
manufacturer
– by expressly disclaiming that the product is reliable, serviceable, safe, etc.
– many manufacturers affix such disclaimers to their products
– that buyer and seller meet as equals in the sales agreement
• assuming buyer and seller are equal "adversaries" in contracting the sale:
– caveat emptor (let the buyer beware) seems fair and reasonable
» each looks out for their own interests
• but there are inequalities disadvantaging the consumer
– knowledge of the product: the manufacturer is in a much better position to know the
product
» buyers must often rely on sellers for information
» which advantages the seller -- especially the unscrupulous seller
– understanding of the contract
» the manufacturer/seller knows just what's in the contract:
» their lawyers drew it up
» with an eye to their protection, not the consumers
» the buyer generally just accepts the terms, often with little more than a cursory glance
at the contract
» Salesperson: "Oh, it's just the usual legal mumbo jumbo. I don't understand it myself "
» Customer (needing the product this afternoon): "Where do I sign?"
6.3 The Due Care Theory
• Based on the idea that the consumer is in a disadvantaged position
– sellers and buyers are not equals in consumer markets: LH v. Wal-Mart,
Sears, GM
– consumers interests are particularly vulnerable to harm by manufacturers &
vendors
• due to the manufacturers superior knowledge about the product
– therefore manufacturers have a duty to take special care to ensure that
consumers' interests are not harmed by their product
• due to their superior knowledge of the product
• Caveat vendor (let the seller take care) supplements caveat emptor (let the buyer
beware)
– manufacturer not only has a duty to deliver a product that lives up to its
express and implied claims
– has an additional duty to exercise "due care" to prevent others from being
injured by the product
• even if the manufacturer expressly disclaims such responsibility
• and the buyer agrees to the disclaimer
• the manufacturer who violates this duty is "negligent"
• This creates a positive duty (for the manufacturer) and right (for the consumer)
– manufacturer's duty: to take due care to make sure that the product is as safe
as possible
– for the consumer: to a product in which due care was taken in its ·
• design, choice of materials, & manufacture
• testing & quality control
• and labeling with warnings, instructions, etc.
The Duty to Exercise Due Care
• Manufacturers exercise sufficient care when they take adequate
steps to prevent whatever injurious effects they can foresee the use
of their products may have
– after having conducted inquiries into how the product will be
used
– and after having tried to anticipate possible misuses of the
product: e.g., glue sniffing
• In general the manufacturer's responsibilities extend to three areas:
– Design
– Production
– information
• Design: to ascertain whether the design of the product conceals
any dangers
– To anticipate & incorporate all feasible safety features
• given the latest technology
– To ascertain whether the materials are adequate for the
purposes the product is intended to serve throughout the
product's expected service life & beyond:
• given the effects of wear and aging
• given the way consumers are likely to use (and misuse) the
product
 • Production: to insure that adequate care is taken and quality control exercised
in the production process
– to eliminate faulty units
– to identify weaknesses that might become apparent during production
– to ensure against economizing measures that would compromise the final product
• shortcuts in the assembly, testing or other processes
• substitution of inferior materials
– to exercise quality control over materials used throughout the manufacturing process
• Information: to affix and include labels, notices, and instructions to the product
– to warn the user of all dangers involved in using or misusing the product in a way
that's
• clear
• simple
• prominent
– to take into consideration the capacities of the persons who will use the product:
• relevant capacities: maturity, intelligence, literacy, disability, etc.
• moral requirement: if the manufacturer anticipates that the product will be used
by individuals with restricted capacities then the manufacturer owes a greater
degree of care in the manufacture, labeling, etc.
– manufacturers should not oppose regulative measures when it is reasonable to help
safeguard users against hazardous products, e.g.,
• alcohol: not allowed to be sold after 2 am: not to be sold to minors
• cigarettes: not to be sold to minors: not to be specifically advertised to minors:
not to be smoked in public buildings, etc.
• gasoline: to be dispensed only into approved containers
• automobiles:
– not to be operated without a license
– subject to periodic safety inspections (in some states)
Problems With Due Care
• Vagary of the notion of "due care" (compare care ethics generally)
– to be told "a reasonable amount" is not very helpful: e.g., how much
salt to put in the soup
• I already knew that (a reasonable amount)
• what I want to know is how much is a reasonable amount
– no clear method or hard and fast rule for determining how much
care is "due"
– one (vaguely utilitarian) proposal for removing some of the vagary
• the greater the possible harm to the greater number the greater
care must be exercised
• e.g., nuclear power plants v. windmill construction
– Limited utility: issues remain (compare utilitarianism generally)
• re: trade offs
– risk is never totally eliminable: every product involves some
– how much cost is warranted in removing which risks?
• measurement problems:
– how much is a life or a limb worth?
– what's an acceptable level of risk to life & limb?
• justice: whatever the acceptable risk point (one in a million say)
the poor sap who is that one bears the whole cost
 • Unforeseeable risks won't be eliminated by due care (from the left)
– sometimes risks of products don't become apparent until after
many years of use
• example: asbestos
– issue remains: who should bear the cost injuries due to these
risks
• manufacturer: "Why me?"
• injured users: "Why me?"
• the taxpayers: "Why me?"
• Paternalism of Due Care (from the right)
– assumes the manufacturer should make decisions for the
consumer regarding acceptable levels of risk
– that decision is better left up to the consumers themselves: it's
their money and their risk
 6.4 The Social Costs Theory
• Overview Imposes responsibilities on manufacturers over and above
sales contractual duties & due care
• Caveat vendor (let the seller take care) is the complete watchword
– the manufacturer should pay the costs of any injuries sustained
through any defects in the product.
• even when the manufacturer has taken due care in the
manufacture and production
• and has exercised due care in informing users about
remaining risks
• and in instructing them in the product's proper use.
– follows the legal doctrine of "strict liability" under which absence of
negligence and lack of knowledge or intent are not excusatory:
only consequences -- the resultant harm -- matters
– non consumer liability examples:
• statutory rape ... even if she showed you a forged birth
certificate & looked more like 20 than 15
• workplace sexual harassment
• Sharia law?
• Defense of the Social Costs View: Based on Utilitarian Remedy of
Internalizing External Costs
– injuries resulting from product defects -- even if they're
unavoidable defects -- are part of the total social cost of
producing & using the product
– internalizing these costs would lead to
1. fairer distribution of costs
– injury related costs would be added to the cost of the
product
– and hence spread out among all users: not borne
entirely by the unlucky sap
– more efficient use of resources
2. the market price reflecting the true social cost of
producing & using the product
– insuring the product won't be overproduced
– which wastes of social resources
– society gets taken:
– e.g., taxpayer expenses due to smoking related illness
3. safer products: if producers assume all the risks
then they'll be highly motivated to eliminate risks
Problems with the Social Costs View
• It's Unfair
– Violates the basic principles of compensatory justice that one is obligated
to compensate parties for consequences of one's acts only those
consequences were
• foreseeable
• preventable.
– Parties treated unfairly include
• manufacturers
• others who had to pay for unwanted safety features
• insurance companies
• Won't reduce the number of accidents
– extra motivation for producers to make a safer product will be offset by
decrease in motivation for users to use the product safely and correctly
– "safer planes" result in more "pilot error"
• Unfair to Insurance Providers?
– The claim
• they'll be faced with spiraling settlement costs under "strict liability"
• forced to raise their rates to unreasonably high levels to cover these
costs
• this would be unfair to small business operators
– unable to afford insurance
– they'll have to go out of business
 » Rebuttal / Denial / Disproof
• costs aren't as great as claimed: insurance companies
exaggerate
– the insurance industry remains highly profitable
– high insurance rates due to other factors like excessive
profits
• Life's Unfair: It seems there's no just solution to the problem about
unforeseeable risks which the Social Costs view tries to solve
– Which of two parties -- manufacturer or consumer --should bear
the expense for injuries for which they were not responsible?
• which they could not foresee
• or could not prevent
– Whoever bears the cost, it's unfair.
– NOTE (LH): this would-be counsel of despair could also argue
for the utilitarian approach ... since justice can't be done, that
leaves utility!
 6.5 Advertising Ethics
• Economics of it
– A massive multi-billion-dollar/year business
– Cost ultimately borne by the consumer
• Consumer Opinion Surveys have shown
– 66% believe advertising does not reduce prices
– 65 % believe advertising makes people buy things they shouldn't
– 63% believe advertisements are untruthful
– 54% believe it insults their intelligence
• Nevertheless -- when they vote with their wallets
– many buy advertised brands
– often willing paying extra
• In defense of advertising it is said advertising provides a useful
communication service informing customers about products available to
them
• Question: Is advertising a waste or a benefit, on balance?
Advertising Ethics a definition
• Defenders of advertising appeal to its informative function
– some such defenders even define
• advertising as a form of information
• an "advertiser" as a kind of information giver
– Yet advertisements, we all know, are notoriously
• long on image: "Image is everything" (Nike slogan)
• long on allure: New Yorker & fashion magazine ads
• long on entertainment value
– Budweisser frogs & Frankie the Lizard
– the Taco Bell chihuahua: "you are getting hungry, very
hungry"
– Joe Camel
• and short on information:
– parade cases
» those frogs, Nike, fashion magazine ads
 » though not completely uninformative: I learned from that little dog
» about the existence & approximate character of Taco Bell
products
» e.g., Gorditas
» of course they're also portrayed as deee-lectable which is
sometimes not the case (misrepresentation?)
» and maybe some of that stuff should come with a cautionary High
Fat High Salt warning (duty of disclosure?)
• The Primary Function of Advertising
– not to provide objective information
• of course if your product really is superior providing objective information
probably won't hurt
• but it still might not help as much as projecting a sexy image
– it's all about SELLING THE PRODUCT
• Velasquez's definition: An advertisement is communication between sellers and
potential buyers
– addressed to a mass audience (as distinct from a private message to a specific
individual) and
–  intended to induce some members of that audience to buy some product from
the seller
• by creating a desire for the product in the consumer
• or by creating a belief that the product is a means to satisfy some desire
the consumer already has
• Three topics concerning the morality of advertising
– social effects
– effects on consumer desires
– effects on consumer beliefs
Social Effects of Advertising
• Frequently heard criticisms
– degrades peoples tastes
– wastes valuable resources
– sustains monopoly & oligopoly power
• Psychological Effects of Advertising
– Some complain of the vulgarity of it: it's distasteful and debases tastes:
• an aesthetic criticism not an ethical one?
• being strident, intrusive, and repetitive a way of getting people's
attention
– Billboard advertising
– TV Car ads: Terry Hanks
• ads for toilet bowl cleaners, deodorants, Preparation H, etc.
– show images and focus peoples minds on things some think are
not particularly edifying
– or elevating things to fix your mind on.
– Moral Criticism: Debases values
• by inculcating and reinforcing materialistic conceptions of
– what happiness is: having lots of toys and going on cruises
– and how to get it: "VISA it's everywhere you want to be."
• alleged consequence: people neglect and underestimate
– the importance of other, more basic, values.
– and the existence of other ways of finding self fulfillment besides
buying.
• alleged consequence: people lead more selfish
lives
– energies diverted away from nonmaterialistic
pursuits beneficial to many & all
» service & camaraderie
– towards selfish pursuit of acquisition
» Debatable that advertising is so powerful or values so
malleable as this criticism would have us think
– values are formed early & run deep: shaped & influenced by
» parents & friends: mostly
» church & school & work: considerably
» arts & entertainment: not inconsiderably
» advertising: very little
– plausibly advertising can't to much to really change people's
basic values
– all it can do is appeal to values people already have
Advertising and Waste
– Economist's Distinction: Two Kinds of Costs
• Production Costs: go into changing the product
– development
– production
– improvement
• Selling Costs do not go into changing the product, such as costs
that go into persuading people to buy the product
– Utilitarian Argument
• Sellers costs and advertising in particular don't add anything to the
utility of the product to the consumer.
• Therefore, from the standpoint consumer utility, advertising
expenditures are wasted
– Reply: Advertising produces broader social benefits: so it's not wasted
expense
• Benefits
– It informs consumers about available products & their
characteristics
– produces an economically beneficial rise in demand for all
products, thus,
» encouraging mass production and economies of scale
» and an economy in which products are manufactured more
efficiently
» and cost less than they otherwise would.
 • Dueling Rejoinders
– advertising doesn't affect total consumption: it only shifts
consumption from one product to another
» increasing overall consumption is a good thing
» but advertising doesn't do it
– increasing total consumption is a curse not a blessing
» it's a bad thing: the threat of resource depletion requires
stabilizing or even decreasing consumption
• and advertising does it
Advertising and Market Power
– Worry: advertising resources large corporations command enable them to
consolidate monopoly & oligopoly control of markets.
• massive advertising campaigns of the major players establish brand
name loyalties
• the small player may be effectively closed out of the market
– Reply: there's no evidence this really is the case
• absence of a firm correlation between advertising expenditure & degree
of concentration:
– some concentrated industries (soaps, detergents, breakfast cereals)
feature heavy advertising
– other concentrated industries (drugs, cosmetics) do not [?drugs &
cosmetics?]
• in some oligopoly industries -- autos, e.g. -- smaller firms spend more per
unit than large
Advertising and the Creation of Consumer Desires
• John Kenneth Galbraith's Criticism:
– Advertising is manipulative:
• it creates desires in consumers for the sole purpose of
absorbing industrial output
• thus it uses people: whether it's in their interest to
consume more is not a consideration
– Two types of desires
• physiological:
– characterization: of physiological origin:
– originate in the buyer and are relatively immune to
being changed by persuasion.
– examples: food, shelter
• psychic: of psychological origin
– characterization: highly subject to being changed by
persuasion
– originating from the would-be seller: advertising can
» swayed & expand & even create them
– example: social status
• Galbraith's charge: advertising exploitatively manipulates our psychic desires
– that it manipulates: perhaps obvious
– the case that this is exploitative
– psychic desires are easily manipulated to excess
– demand created by physical needs are finite . . . only so much you can
eat
– but psychic demands are virtually infinite: "more, more, is the cry of the
deluded soul" (Blake)
• it uses the consumer as means alone
– advertisements' express purpose is selling their product
– not the consumers welfare [maybe not if it's a product you really
believe in?]
• would be redeeming social benefit: fuels ever expanding economy is a
dubious benefit
– a kind of systemic compulsion
– there's cause to worry about long-term sustainability of growth given
finitude of depletable resources
– ideal of consumer sovereignty is undermined: producers usurp it
• rather than production being molded to serve human desires
• human desires are molded to serve the needs of production
• Assessment of Galbraith's Criticism
– Dubious of empirical assumption about the manipulability of psychic desires
• mentioned above regarding advertising alleged abilities to change peoples
values.
• advertising has no monopoly on creation of psychic wants: arguably plays a
very small role in shaping people's basic preferences
 – Nevertheless, some advertising is clearly intended to
manipulate:
• to arouse in the consumer a psychological desire for the
product without the consumer's knowledge
• which interferes with the consumer being able to rationally
weigh whether purchase of the product is in his or her own
best interest
• examples
– ads using "subliminal suggestion"
– ads that attempt to make consumers associate unreal sexual or
social fulfillment with the product
– advertising aimed at exploiting children's gullibility
» about the wonderful feats of the animated action character
» misrepresent the characteristics and capabilities of the
plastic action figure doll
» modeled on the character: or vice versa it often happens
these days
» for sale near you.
• such advertising is manipulative in intent because it seeks
– to circumvent conscious reasoning & hence undermine the
rational agency of the consumer
–  to influence the consumer to do what the advertiser wants
» regardless of what is in the consumer's best interests
Advertising and its Effects on Consumer Beliefs
• Much criticism of advertising focuses on its communicative aspect
and its deceptive use
– can communicate truths: information
– but also falsehoods: misinformation & disinformation
• Pertinent to the would-be defense of the utility of advertising --
against the charge of wastefulness -- since
– if information has value: if being informed is a benefit
– disinformation presumably has disvalue: being misinformed is a cost
• Deceptive advertising unarguably wrong on both Kantian &
Utilitarian grounds
– Kantian grounds:
• violation of consumer's rights to rational self determination
• lying is a paradigm case of a nonuniversalizable practice
– Utilitarian grounds:
• breeds distrust of communication in general
• false beliefs have disutility: leads to wrong (more costly, less beneficial)
choices
• interferes with the beneficial workings markets by undermining the free
rational agency of buyers
• All communication involves three terms
– the author(s) who originate it
– the medium that carries it
– the audience who receives it
 – Authors
– Have moral duty not to deceive
– Whether an advertisement is culpably deceptive depends on the intent
of the author
• the author must intend the audience to believe something false
• that the author knows is false
• which the author intentionally leads the audience to believe
– whether through explicit assertion
– or implication
– or otherwise: e.g., in subliminal ads
• In the case of vulnerable audiences like children
– duty not to exploit their vulnerabilities
• Media
– Have a duty to ensure the ads they transmit are not misleading.
– In the case of vulnerable audiences like children
• duty not to exploit their vulnerabilities
• Audience
– Have a right not to be deceived.
– In the case of vulnerable audiences (like children)
• have a right not to have their vulnerabilities exploited
• Ethical Checklist: "the main factors that should be taken into consideration
when determining the ethical nature of a given advertisement"
– Social Effects
• What does the author intend the effects to be?
• What are the actual effects?
– Effects on Desire
• Is the argument intended to be informative or merely
persuasive?
• If mainly persuasive does it attempt to create a desire that is
irrational or possibly injurious?
– Effects on Belief
• Is the content of the advertisement truthful?
• Does the advertisement have a tendency to mislead its
target audience?
– True claims can be misleading
» 9-10 dentists use the Oral-B toothbrush
» supposed to conclude: dentists overwhelming judge
Oral-B the best toothbrush
» why else would they choose it?
– but they don't exactly "choose" it: they're distributed free
to dentists
 6.6 Consumer Privacy
• Threats to privacy in the computer age
– British firms are known (from reports they file) to collect highly detailed and
very personal information about their customers including
• sexual information
• political information
– MIB (the Medical Information Bureau) -- "a company founded in 1902 to
provide insurance companies with information about the health of individuals
applying for life insurance to detect fraudulent applications" -- currently has
medical histories on about 15 million people
– Credit Bureaus
– Other
• Privacy rights
– right to privacy: the right of persons to determine what, to whom, and how
much information about themselves will be disclosed to other parties
– psychological privacy: privacy with respect to a person's inner life
– physical privacy: privacy with respect to a person's physical activities
• Protective functions of privacy
– prevents others from acquiring information about us that would expose us to
shame, ridicule, or even blackmail
– keeps others out of our business: leaves room for unconventionality
– protects those we love from having their beliefs about us shaken
– protects us from self-incrimination
 – Enabling functions of privacy
– privacy enables intimacy: intimacy involves sharing confidences which
requires having confidences
– privacy enables various professional relations to exist
• attorney-client
• doctor-patient
– enables individuals to sustain distinct social roles
– enables individuals to control their own image or self-presentation
• Consumers' rights to privacy need to be balanced with legitimate business
needs for information: key concerns:
– relevance: databases 'should include only information that is directly
relevant to the purpose for which the database is being maintained"
– informed: consumers should be informed about what information is
being collected and why
– consent: consumers should explicitly or implicitly consent to any
information collection
– accuracy: data collecting agencies must take care that the data is
accurate
– purpose: the purpose for which the information is collected must be
legitimate, i.e., if its collection is generally beneficial to those about
whom it is being collected.
– recipients and security: data collectors "must insure that information is
secure and not available to parties that the individual has not explicitly
or implicitly consented to be a recipient of that information"