Question 1
Introduction Businessman and consultant Michael Philips ' essay “The Inconclusive Ethical Care Against Manipulative Advertising” provides a nuanced and compelling critique of ethical criticisms against manipulative advertising. While nevertheless conceding that the practice of manipulative advertising itself is problematic and unethical, he suggests that the premises upon which ethical criticisms of this practice rest are logically flawed, and fail to provide a cogent critique of how advertising apparently “socializes people to a life of consumption” (Phillips 37). Critics of manipulative advertising are cited by Phillips as couching their critiques within the language of ethics, a phenomenon which he believes fails to adequately …show more content…
As an ethical theory, Utilitarianism was first developed by British philosophers Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill who “identified the good with pleasure” and believed that within society “that we ought to maximize the good, that is, bring about 'the greatest amount of good for the greatest number '” (Driver 2). A core assumption of Phillips ' argument is that manipulative advertising operates on two levels: “(1) by socializing them to embrace consumerist values, and (2) by dictating individual purchase decisions” (Phillips 38). Utilitarian ethical theory is cite by Phillips as criticizing each of these suppositions either individually or in combination, and he explores the ideas of John Galbraith regarding consumer wants and the generation of consumerist attitudes, secondly the belief that “manipulative advertising concerns its power to distort consumer choices among brands and products” (Phillips 40), and finally a belief in “Long-Run Harm,” and the conviction that overall manipulative advertising generates negative utility within society (Phillips …show more content…
Galbraith sought to demystify consumerism within the U.S., and discredit the core argument that “America 's enormous production of consumer goods is justified because people want, enjoy, and demand them” (Phillips 38). In an effort to undermine the naturalization of consumerism advanced by such scholars Galbraith witnessed in the U.S., Galbraith is noted by Phillips as “undermin[ing] at least two widespread beliefs: (1) that consumer desires are genuinely autonomous, and (2) that they produce significant satisfactions” (Phillips 38). Galbraith believed that the generation of consumer wants were contrived, and that they were generated by the “productive process through which they are satisfied” and with advertising serving as the main conduit (Phillips
Introduction Businessman and consultant Michael Philips ' essay “The Inconclusive Ethical Care Against Manipulative Advertising” provides a nuanced and compelling critique of ethical criticisms against manipulative advertising. While nevertheless conceding that the practice of manipulative advertising itself is problematic and unethical, he suggests that the premises upon which ethical criticisms of this practice rest are logically flawed, and fail to provide a cogent critique of how advertising apparently “socializes people to a life of consumption” (Phillips 37). Critics of manipulative advertising are cited by Phillips as couching their critiques within the language of ethics, a phenomenon which he believes fails to adequately …show more content…
As an ethical theory, Utilitarianism was first developed by British philosophers Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill who “identified the good with pleasure” and believed that within society “that we ought to maximize the good, that is, bring about 'the greatest amount of good for the greatest number '” (Driver 2). A core assumption of Phillips ' argument is that manipulative advertising operates on two levels: “(1) by socializing them to embrace consumerist values, and (2) by dictating individual purchase decisions” (Phillips 38). Utilitarian ethical theory is cite by Phillips as criticizing each of these suppositions either individually or in combination, and he explores the ideas of John Galbraith regarding consumer wants and the generation of consumerist attitudes, secondly the belief that “manipulative advertising concerns its power to distort consumer choices among brands and products” (Phillips 40), and finally a belief in “Long-Run Harm,” and the conviction that overall manipulative advertising generates negative utility within society (Phillips …show more content…
Galbraith sought to demystify consumerism within the U.S., and discredit the core argument that “America 's enormous production of consumer goods is justified because people want, enjoy, and demand them” (Phillips 38). In an effort to undermine the naturalization of consumerism advanced by such scholars Galbraith witnessed in the U.S., Galbraith is noted by Phillips as “undermin[ing] at least two widespread beliefs: (1) that consumer desires are genuinely autonomous, and (2) that they produce significant satisfactions” (Phillips 38). Galbraith believed that the generation of consumer wants were contrived, and that they were generated by the “productive process through which they are satisfied” and with advertising serving as the main conduit (Phillips