Discuss the below:
Arrington:
Advertising from a psychological view point:
Freud's theory: the mind is split into three compartments:
Ego: consciousness.
Super-ego: the seat of our morality, our conscience.
Id, libido, unconsciousness: our desires, hidden needs, and sexual energy are linked to our unconsciousness.
The burden of culture: we repress our desires and hidden needs, because society needs order and regulation. Our sexual energy is rebellious against order and regulation. This repression of our sexual desires can develop into mental diseases and disorders. Freud constructed a theory of dreams as the key to understand our unconsciousness and the so-called hidden needs that Arrington refers to. Our dreams spring from our unconsciousness, but our super-ego prevents us from understanding the content. Our super-ego or moral values censor the content, but Freud thought that he could reveal the symbolic language of our unconsciousness. In our dreams our super-ego is less watchful, but we have to learn the symbols to understand our dreams. For instance, a tower may represent a phallus.
In Freud's theory our culture is a sublimation of our desires, so that we can express our desires in a socially acceptable way.
The use of Freudian theory in advertising:
The advertisement tries to associate one's desire with a product, so that the person who has the desire can express this in a socially acceptable way when s/he buys the product, for instance, a perfume. The message is: if you buy this perfume, you will become attractive.
The advertising industry is a research lab that specializes in our mind and what motivates our behavior.
Ethical questions:
Does advertising compromise our autonomy?
Puffery means that we exaggerate the qualities of a product.
An argument for puffery is suggested by Levitt. He claims that our life becomes more interesting when we associate the products we buy and our dreams that advertising evokes. It is comparable to the embellishment of our temples and churches.
An argument against puffery: it is misinformation about the product which makes it more difficult to make a reasonable judgment about the purchase.
Nelson claims that ads are indirect information: the more they advertise for a product, the better it is.
Galbraith: the dependence effort: the primary function of ads is to create desires, not to satisfy customers' needs or inform them about the products.
Skinner: ads can make our autonomy an illusion because of external factors. For instance, if somebody buys a car because the manufacturer of the car happens to be the sponsor of his favorite TV program, he does not act rationally or autonomously.
Braybrooke: ads manipulate the consumers, because they do not respond to their real wants, but to those that are created by the advertising industry.
Hayek: culturally induced desires need not be non-autonomous. We make an autonomous choice when we enjoy the products of culture, for instance, listening to music or seeing a play.
We exercise our autonomy when we make our own free choice independent of external factors. The question is if we can exercise our autonomy when we are influenced by an advertisement.
Compulsive behavior:
The kleptomaniac is a person who has an irresistible desire to steal. This is considered a non-autonomous desire, because s/he cannot control the desire.
To find out if we are autonomous when we desire something Frankfurt suggests that we distinguish between first-order and second-order desires.
A second-order desire means that we desire the first-order desire. If we recognize the first-order desire, then our desire is genuine. If don't, then it is not genuine. Since the kleptomaniac does not want her/his desire to steal, the desire is not genuine. The kleptomaniac cannot exercise her/his autonomy.
Subliminal advertising:
There is something flashing that tells us something about a product, but we hardly notice it. It is something that our subconscious responds to. This is legal in our country, but not in the UK.
Arrington concludes that ads are ok, because we cannot prove that they will harm many people.
Holley: the relationship between salespeople and consumers:
1. Minimal information rule: the salesperson has no obligation to give any information, unless the buyer requests information. Caveat emptor, buyer be aware.
2. Modified minimal information rule: safety information is required.
3. Fairness rule: the salesperson should provide the information about the product that the buyer could not reasonably be expected to know.
4. Mutual benefit rule: the salesperson has to give any information needed to make the buyer capable of making a reasonable judgment about the purchase.
5. Maximal information rule: the salesperson should give the buy all relevant information. Consumer reports.
Case 1: the recliner, an ordinary consumer who wants to buy a recliner: mutual benefit rule should guide them.
Case 2: antiques, experts make a deal: the fairness rule should guide them.
Brenkert:
Vulnerability: something that can harm people. There are different kinds of vulnerability:
1. Physically vulnerable: allergies, special sensitivity
2. Cognitively vulnerable: lack the ability to process the information: children, senile elderly, people who lack education and shopping sophistication
3. Motivationally vulnerable: grieving and gravely ill
4. Socially vulnerable: because of their social situation they cannot resist enticements
Brenkert believes in a theory of strict products liability on utilitarian grounds. He argues that it benefits the marketplace, if the manufacturers are held objectively liable for the injuries or damages caused by their products, i.e. the manufacturers will have a duty to pay the costs of injuries or damages, regardless of who is at fault. The case of asbestos is an example of strict products liability. The manufacturer was held liable for the injuries of workers and consumers who had been exposed to asbestos, although they could not blame the manufacturer, because nobody knew that asbestos was a threat to people's health.
Brenkers suggests an analogous theory of targeted consumer liability. But this theory is non-consequentialist. The autonomy of the vulnerable consumers is more important than the benefits of a more efficient marketplace.
In his theory of targeted consumer liability Brenkert argues that advertisers should not take advantage of vulnerable consumers, because consumers have rights which no utilitarian considerations can override.
Brenkert wants to protect the free market and make it more efficient, but not at the expense of vulnerable consumers.
Elliot:
Drug reps try to take advantage of patients by compensating doctors in different ways. The problem is that the doctor may be motivated by his compensation from the drug company and be less careful about the patient. This disrupts the trust between the doctor and the patient, because the doctor has a fiduciary duty towards the patient. The doctor should always be motivated by her/his concern for the patient. This idea of the importance of the fiduciary duty was also important in Friedman's argument that business is a profit-maximizing enterprise. However, Elliot argues that business violates the doctor's fiduciary duty towards her/his patient. Is this a case against Friedman's shareholder theory? This is a question that Friedman did not consider. I think that Friedman would be open to this criticism, because he realized that it is possible that such questions cannot be answered satisfactorily without negating the libertarian framework.