Skip to main content
Log in

Irrational Advertising and Moral Autonomy

  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article analyzes the four main criticisms against commercial manipulative advertising (here called irrational advertising): the virtue ethics criticism (“irrational advertising prevents human virtue”), the utilitarian criticism (“irrational advertising harms general happiness”), the autonomist criticism (“irrational advertising violates the audience’s autonomy”), and the Kantian criticism (“irrational advertising implies treating humanity merely as means”). After demonstrating the weaknesses of the virtue ethics criticism, the utilitarian criticism, and the autonomist criticism, I reconstruct the latter using Kant’s conception of autonomy. In doing so, I simultaneously expand the Kantian criticism: irrational advertising not only entails treating humanity merely as means, but it also threatens moral autonomy by encouraging heteronomy and sometimes even a rebellion against the moral law.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. A clarification is in order. This paper slowly unfolds towards a criticism of a type of advertising, namely irrational. The guilty party, though, are advertisers who engage in this type of advertising, not the ads themselves which, as “things,” cannot be blamed.

  2. The utilitarian criticism may include an analysis of how it diminishes human virtue, but if so it should not be confused with the virtue ethics criticism, just as we should not equate utilitarianism and virtue ethics.

  3. A reviewer had difficulty in designating deception as a species or component of manipulative advertising. In his or her opinion, irrational persuasion is a better correspondent, and deception is a category unto itself. To support this, the reviewer mentioned that there are consumer laws and policies against deceptive advertising, but no particular laws directed to irrational persuasion per se. I disagree. In deceiving I also manipulate others (or attempt to do so). This is further developed in “The Kantian criticism” section. Also, the fact that laws and policies tend to focus on deceptive advertising and overlook irrational persuasion may have other explanations: (a) irrational persuasion is harder to legislate; (b) legislator and the general public may be blind to the evils of irrational persuasion; and so on. That said, there are increasing examples of legislation that address irrational persuasion around the world. The case of fast food advertising addressed to children is an instance of that.

  4. All references to Kant’s works will use Prussian Academy numbers.

  5. What would these ads look like? That is the job of the advertiser, not of the ethicist, who merely argues for the limits of the profession.

References

  • American Association of Advertising Agencies. (2015). How many advertisements is a person exposed to in a day? Retrieved July 22, 2015 from https://ams.aaaa.org/eweb/upload/faqs/adexposures.pdf.

  • Arnold, D. G., & Bowie, N. E. (2003). Sweatshops and respect for persons. Business Ethics Quarterly, 13(2), 221–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arrington, R. L. (1982). Advertising and behavior control. Journal of Business Ethics, 1(1), 3–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bakan, J. (2004). The corporation. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beauchamp, T. (2001). Manipulative advertising. In T. Beauchamp & N. E. Bowie (Eds.), Ethical theory and business (6th ed., pp. 476–484). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowie, N. E. (1999). A Kantian approach to business ethics. In R. E. Frederick (Ed.), A companion to business ethics (pp. 3–16). Oxford: Blackwell.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Cambridge Dictionary. (2015). Retrieved July 22, 2015 from http://dictionary.cambridge.org/.

  • Crisp, R. (1987). Persuasive advertising, autonomy, and the creation of desire. Journal of Business Ethics, 6(5), 413–418.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cunningham, A. (2003). Autonomous consumption: Buying into the ideology of capitalism. Journal of Business Ethics, 48(3), 229–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeGeorge, R. T. (2001). Marketing and truth. In N. E. Bowie & T. Beauchamp (Eds.), Ethical theory and business (6th ed., pp. 463–468). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frankfurt, H. (1971). Freedom of the will and the concept of a person. Journal of Philosophy, 68(1), 5–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galbraith, J. K. (1994). The dependence effect. In W. M. Hoffman & R. E. Frederick (Eds.), Business ethics: Readings and cases in corporate morality (3rd ed., pp. 405–409). New York: Mcgraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenspan, P. (2003). The problem with manipulation. American Philosophical Quarterly, 40(2), 155–164.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hare, R. M. (1984). Commentary. Business & Professional Ethics Journal, 3(3 & 4), 23–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kant, I. (1999[1785]). Groundwork of the metaphysics of morals. In M. J. Gregor (Ed.), The Cambridge edition of the works of Immanuel Kant: Practical Philosophy (pp. 37–108). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kant, I. (1999[1788]). Critique of practical reason. In M. J. Gregor (Ed.), The Cambridge edition of the works of Immanuel Kant: Practical philosophy (pp. 133–272). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Korsgaard, C. (1996). Creating the kindgom of ends. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Leiser, B. (1979). Beyond fraud and deception: The moral uses of advertising. In T. Donaldson & P. Werhane (Eds.), Ethical issues in business (pp. 59–66). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mill, J. S. (1989[1859]). In S. Collini (Ed.), On liberty. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mill, J. S. (2001[1861]). In G. Sher (Ed.), Utilitarianism. Indianapolis: Hacket Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Noggle, R. (1995). Autonomy, value and conditioned desire. American Philosophical Quarterly, 32(1), 57–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Neill, O. (1989). Constructions of reasons. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, M. J. (1994). The inconclusive ethical case against manipulative advertising. Business & Professional Ethics Journal, 13(4), 31–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, B. J. (1997). In defense of advertising: A social perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 16(2), 109–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandel, M. J. (2010). Justice: What’s the right thing to do? New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

    Google Scholar 

  • Santilli, P. C. (1983). The informative and persuasive functions of advertising: A moral appraisal. Journal of Business Ethics, 2(1), 27–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sher, S. (2011). A framework for assessing immorally manipulative marketing tactics. Journal of Business Ethics, 102(1), 97–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sneddon, A. (2001). Advertising and deep autonomy. Journal of Business Ethics, 33(1), 15–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Statista. (2015). Statistics and facts about the global advertising market. Retrieved July 22, 2015 from http://www.statista.com/topics/990/global-advertising-market/.

  • Taylor, Ch. (1985a). Human agency and language: Philosophical papers 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, Ch. (1985b). Philosophy and the human sciences: Philosophical papers 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, Ch. (1989). Sources of the self: The making of the modern identity. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, Ch. (1991). The ethics of authenticity. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waide, J. (1987). The making of self and world in advertising. Journal of Business Ethics, 6(2), 73–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

An earlier version of this article was presented at the 2014 Meeting of the Canadian Society for the Study of Practical Ethics. The event took place at Brock University in St. Catherines, Ontario, from May 24-26. Thanks to the co-organizers, Michel Hebert and Julie Ponesse, and to the people present for their thoughtful comments. I would also like to thank Thomas Carson, professor at Loyola University Chicago, for his helpful insights on one of the final drafts. Thanks are also due to the editor and anonymous reviewers of the Journal of Business Ethics for their time and observations. Last but not least, I owe many thanks to my wife, Laura E. Wulf, who proofread this document several times, making my raw English look good, and kept my arguments sharp (any remaining mistake, though, is all my responsibility).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alonso Villarán.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Villarán, A. Irrational Advertising and Moral Autonomy. J Bus Ethics 144, 479–490 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2813-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2813-z

Keywords

Navigation