The two major schools of ethics, Kant’s Categorical Imperative and Bentham’s Utilitarianism, can be found in everyday commercials and advertisements. Immanuel Kant believed that there is only one moral standard, and that everyone must obey it at all times. Kantian ethics states that if an act is wrong, no matter the circumstances, it should not be be executed. Kant concluded that even something as small as a “white lie,” leads a person down a slippery slope in which other immoral acts such as murder are no longer of consequence. The famous Lay’s slogan “Betcha can’t eat just one,” is a perfect example of Kant’s slippery slope.
Once the consumer has eaten one Lay’s chip, he cannot resist the temptation to continue eating until the entire bag is devoured. Similarly, as soon as a human being crosses the moral boundary line, the temptation to abstain from other immoral acts is too great to resist. One small, delicious chip, or in the ethical view, one tiny sin, quickly leads to an empty chip bag and a multitude of sins. In a Kantian view, one should simply stay away from chips altogether in order to lead a perfectly moral life with the best possible society.
Another school of ethics, utilitarianism, is also portrayed in advertising. Jeremy Bentham, a primary founder of utilitarianism, believed in “the greatest good for the greatest number.” Bentham stated that, “That which does not maximize the greatest happiness (such as an act of pure ascetic sacrifice) is, therefore, morally wrong” [1]. The ShamWow, a multipurpose towel, is an example of a utilitarian product.
A ShamWow, according to the commercial, is like a sponge, paper towel, and cloth towel combined. By maximizing its uses, the ShamWow provides the greatest good for the greatest number. It saves money and works well for all occasions. According to the utilitarianism viewpoint, one should only purchase ShamWows because it would be immoral use any towel with only one use.
Another common ethical theme in advertising is the social contract theory. According to this theory, people should be moral “to make social living possible” [2]. It is very similar to the golden rule: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” In other words, in order to look out for oneself, it is advantageous to “live in a society in which people behave morally” [2]. By living morally yourself, you encourage society to behave morally as well. Insurance commercials abide by this school of ethics, stating that by buying their insurance people are protecting themselves from what could happen. By acting morally and purchasing the best insurance, one is helping society to be moral by being prepared for mayhem.
Social contract theory is focused on preventative ethics by acting morally in order to prevent others from acting immorally. It sets a good example for others to follow so that everyone benefits. Similarly, according to the Allstate commercial, by giving money to the insurance company, one is setting a good example and preventing the consequences of immoral actions. A world in which everyone has insurance for accidents is the best world possible, according to the social contract theory.
[1]: Sweet, William. "Jeremy Bentham." Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 23 December 2008. Web. <http://www.iep.utm.edu/bentham/#H6>.
[2]: Rachels, James, and Stuart Rachels. Problems from Philosophy. New York: McGraw Hill, 2012. Print.
[1]: Sweet, William. "Jeremy Bentham." Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 23 December 2008. Web. <http://www.iep.utm.edu/bentham/#H6>.
[2]: Rachels, James, and Stuart Rachels. Problems from Philosophy. New York: McGraw Hill, 2012. Print.
These are good examples, Megan. The Lays commercial does bring into light one of Kant's ideas about ethics and right action. He did note that we operate from desire rather than reason.
ReplyDeleteVirtue Ethics, connected to Aristotle, would argue that eating a moderate amount of chips would be optimal.
Bringing in social contract theory with your other examples helps clarify how our actions do influence and affect each other. Social contract theory was one of the arguments that Socrates gave when he agreed to drink hemlock when the state sentenced him to death. To escape punishment would have broken the contract and so Socrates reasons that drinking the hemlock is the just and ethical decision.
Thanks for broadening our view of ethics with your post
The topic of ethics and advertising reminded me of a movie called "Death to Smoochy". The film centers around a children's program star, Sheldon Mopes, AKA Smoochy the Rhino (think Barney). Sheldon is an organic, vegetarian, gluten-free, wheat grass juicer. He tries to live as healthily and as morally as possible.
ReplyDeleteSoon after gaining the prime children's show time slot, the show's producers start planning a whole line of sugary breakfast cereals and cheap plastic toys that are sure to be choking hazards. Sheldon refuses to let his character's name be attached to the unhealthy and potentially dangerous products, and hires an agent, specifically to prevent it.
In our modern society, children's characters endorse an enormous quantity of sugary breakfast cereals, unhealthy snacks, and cheap plastic toys, not to mention the plethora of junk peddled during commercial breaks. Children see the images of the characters that they enjoy watching and want to have the product, regardless of whether it's good for them.
According to a 2009 Nielsen Company study children aged 2-11 years old watch an average of over 23 hours of TV a week, which includes commercials (1).
But is this ethical? Is it moral? Should young children in particular be exposed to heroes who encourage eating sugar for breakfast and participation in blind consumerism?
Kant focused on the motives behind the actions to establish their morality. If the top objective of the TV company is to turn a profit, then their actions are morally wrong and so they are breaking a categorical imperative.
According to utilitarianism, it seems we must weigh the needs of the children over the needs of the TV companies. Given the high rates of childhood obesity in this country (17% of or 12.5 million children are obese!(2)), the high cost to society of health problems associated with obesity, and without doing an actual head count, I'm pretty sure the greatest good for the greatest number would side against these products.
Granted, I haven't watched children's shows in several years, so maybe the situation has improved, but really, doesn't Sheldon have it right? Shouldn't we encourage children to make healthy choices, and prevent them from idolizing those who don't? I'm not promoting a generation of sheltered granola fanatics, but a change in our priorities for our children, a focus on what is best for impressionable young minds.
1. http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/media_entertainment/tv-viewing-among-kids-at-an-eight-year-high/
2.http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/childhood/data.html