Duty
But what does it mean for a will to be good? This is where the concept of duty comes in. Kant says that a person’s will is only good if it is motivated by duty and nothing else. If an advertiser communicates in his advertisement that cleaning hands is essential to staying healthy because it is his duty and right thing to do, then his act can be considered ethical. But, if he intends to encourage the habit of cleaning, thereby increasing the market size and in the process the sale of his handwash, there is nothing ethical about such an act. According to Kant, there is nothing ethical about doing something because it makes you feel good or gain something. This concept of ‘duty’ makes ethics out of reach for advertisers. Further, duty for …show more content…
Puffery is a wonderfully named term that refers to those tall advertising claims that children are bombarded with every day–like, ‘world famous biscuits’ or ‘the best in the world’. Preston places puffs into six categories: best, best possible, better, specially good, good and subjective qualities (10,11). Even though it is receiving more scrutiny than in the past, puffery is still considered an acceptable practice for advertisers and salespeople. This acceptance is rooted in the free market concept of caveat emptor: let the buyer beware. This concept is potentially dangerous if applied to vulnerable population like kids. These are consumers, who by no fault of their own are unable to make reasonable assessments of the claims made by advertisers or salespeople (12). Let us for a moment try to universalize the concept of puffery. Let us imagine a doctor using puffery to advise his patients to use a particular drug or undergo particular treatment and not cautioning him about the alternatives available or potential side effects of a particular drug. Such an advice by a doctor to the patient could be potentially lethal. If the use of puffery is not accepted in the above case, its use in advertisements can also be never …show more content…
Since April 2007, UK banned junk food advertising during television programs aimed at children aged 7 to 9. As of January 1, 2008, that ban has been extended to all children under 16(15). When we apply Kant’s formula of universalization, then something which is not good for some people is not good for anyone. This calls for complete ban on advertising to kids.
Categorical Imperative II – Treat persons as ends
In the second formulation of the Categorical Imperative, Kant reminds us the difference, between persons and things. Persons are rational beings. They don’t just have a relative value, but if anything has, they have an absolute value, an intrinsic value. That is, rational beings have dignity (Sandel Page 66). This leads us to the second formulation which reads as “Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end.” (Kant 23)
Advertising to Children treats children as instruments for sales or profit and not in end themselves. Such a treatment of kids as instruments is akin to not treating them with dignity. Hence, on application of Kant’s humanity formula, advertisement seems inhuman and
But what does it mean for a will to be good? This is where the concept of duty comes in. Kant says that a person’s will is only good if it is motivated by duty and nothing else. If an advertiser communicates in his advertisement that cleaning hands is essential to staying healthy because it is his duty and right thing to do, then his act can be considered ethical. But, if he intends to encourage the habit of cleaning, thereby increasing the market size and in the process the sale of his handwash, there is nothing ethical about such an act. According to Kant, there is nothing ethical about doing something because it makes you feel good or gain something. This concept of ‘duty’ makes ethics out of reach for advertisers. Further, duty for …show more content…
Puffery is a wonderfully named term that refers to those tall advertising claims that children are bombarded with every day–like, ‘world famous biscuits’ or ‘the best in the world’. Preston places puffs into six categories: best, best possible, better, specially good, good and subjective qualities (10,11). Even though it is receiving more scrutiny than in the past, puffery is still considered an acceptable practice for advertisers and salespeople. This acceptance is rooted in the free market concept of caveat emptor: let the buyer beware. This concept is potentially dangerous if applied to vulnerable population like kids. These are consumers, who by no fault of their own are unable to make reasonable assessments of the claims made by advertisers or salespeople (12). Let us for a moment try to universalize the concept of puffery. Let us imagine a doctor using puffery to advise his patients to use a particular drug or undergo particular treatment and not cautioning him about the alternatives available or potential side effects of a particular drug. Such an advice by a doctor to the patient could be potentially lethal. If the use of puffery is not accepted in the above case, its use in advertisements can also be never …show more content…
Since April 2007, UK banned junk food advertising during television programs aimed at children aged 7 to 9. As of January 1, 2008, that ban has been extended to all children under 16(15). When we apply Kant’s formula of universalization, then something which is not good for some people is not good for anyone. This calls for complete ban on advertising to kids.
Categorical Imperative II – Treat persons as ends
In the second formulation of the Categorical Imperative, Kant reminds us the difference, between persons and things. Persons are rational beings. They don’t just have a relative value, but if anything has, they have an absolute value, an intrinsic value. That is, rational beings have dignity (Sandel Page 66). This leads us to the second formulation which reads as “Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end.” (Kant 23)
Advertising to Children treats children as instruments for sales or profit and not in end themselves. Such a treatment of kids as instruments is akin to not treating them with dignity. Hence, on application of Kant’s humanity formula, advertisement seems inhuman and