Advertisers have their ways of persuading customers to buy their products. Are we any different from them or better than them in our ways of persuasion?
We are bombarded with advertisements: on the internet, on billboards, on tv and radio. They try to lure us in and let us buy products we don’t need. We often judge advertisers and say they’ve gone to far. I wonder if we are in a position to judge them on their ethical behaviour, because we ourselves use the same tactics as they do in everyday life.
According to Simons (2001) there are five perspectives on ethics persuaders like advertisers, but also people like you and me, could use: pragmatism, utilitarianism, universalism, dialogic ethics and situationalism.
Pragmatists would consider the costs and benefits about certain ethical practices and would then decide if the practice is worth it. I often find myself taking this perspective into consideration with small decisions I have to make, especially when buying new clothes or other things I don’t need.
But I’m a bigger fan of utilitarianism: the-ends-justify-the-means-principle. You rationalize ethical questionable act and achieve success by any means, if the end is important enough. I often think that when I have a goal in mind and I am convinced this goal will benefit me or my loved ones, I will try to accomplish that without any regard to the means. According to Simons this could take on extreme forms (e.g. WWII) and I agree with him. I think a person can live by utilitarianism, but they shouldn’t disregard their own values. I would never kill to get what I want and I would never sell my body for any goal I want to achieve.
Universalists believe that ethical practices are “intrinsically virtuous or intrinsically objectionable” (Simons, 2001, p. 362). This would have to mean that you know what is good and what is bad. I don’t believe anyone is a in a position to judge over others that they are bad or good. And I don’t think there are any universal practices. I try not to judge others by my own morals and values, but try to put myself in their shoes with their cultural background.
Dialogic ethics means that “communication between two persons is facilitated when each treats the other as a thou, a person, rather than an it, an object to manipulate” (p. 362). This is something that I live by. I want to treat people the same way as I would want to be treated. Persuasion can’t exists without dialogic ethics, because people don’t respond well to being objectified.
Situationalists believe that “ethics should be role- or situationspecific” (p. 363). This would mean that you adjust your own values and morals to the situation, I don’t believe that this is even possible. Everyone has individual values and morals and they don’t go away in specific situations.
I am a mix of every perspective on ethics Simons suggests. Which brings me to the question I pose: how ethical are you? I think we all are a bit ambiguous and contradictory on ethical subjects. That is why advertisers shouldn’t be judged on using tactics for their ads, because we use them ourselves in real life. Advertisers or their ads aren’t immoral. If we want them to change their ways, we should first change our own ways. After all: you’re treated the way you treat others.
Literature
Simons, H.W. (2001). Persuasion in Society. Thousand Oaks etc: Sage.