Misleading Or Deceptive Conduct: The Battle Of The Bunnies

Misleading Or Deceptive Conductthe Battle Of The Bunnies Batteries

Identify and analyze a specific ethical issue, exploring how classical ethical theories—such as utilitarianism, deontology, and virtue ethics—would address this issue. Examine various perspectives on ethics, including relativism, emotivism, or ethical egoism, and contrast these with the classical theories. Conclude by stating which perspective aligns most closely with your own, providing a well-supported argument.

Paper For Above instruction

The ethical dilemma surrounding misleading advertising practices, particularly in the context of product comparisons, exemplifies the complex interplay between commercial interests and consumer protection. A pertinent case illustrating this is the dispute between Eveready and Gillette over the advertising campaign for Duracell batteries. Gillette’s advertisements claimed that Duracell batteries lasted “up to four times longer,” implying a superior performance compared to competitors. Eveready challenged this, asserting that the advertising was misleading, particularly because it suggested a comparison against all other batteries, while the actual comparison was limited to zinc carbon batteries, not all battery types. The case reveals several ethical issues pertaining to honesty, consumer protection, and the responsibilities of corporations in advertising.

From a utilitarian perspective, the ethical evaluation emphasizes the overall happiness and welfare of society. Utilitarianism, as proposed by John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham, advocates actions that maximize happiness and minimize suffering. Applying this framework to the case, misleading advertising that exaggerates product benefits may temporarily benefit the company through increased sales. However, such deception ultimately reduces consumer trust, leads to misinformation, and may cause financial harm or disappointment when the product underperforms, thereby diminishing overall societal welfare. Consequently, utilitarianism would argue against deceptive advertising, emphasizing the importance of transparency to promote long-term happiness for consumers and the integrity of the marketplace.

In contrast, deontology, as articulated by Immanuel Kant, focuses on the morality of actions based on adherence to moral duties and principles, rather than consequences. Kant’s categorical imperative underscores that individuals should act according to maxims that could be universally applied and treat others as ends, not merely as means. Under this view, deceptive advertising violates the moral duty of honesty and respect owed to consumers. The act of making false claims, even if profitable, is inherently immoral, as it undermines trust and compromises the dignity of consumers. Kantian ethics would condemn Gillette’s misleading campaign, stressing the importance of truthfulness and the moral obligation to provide accurate information regardless of potential commercial gains.

Virtue ethics, originating from Aristotle, evaluates moral behavior based on character traits and virtues such as honesty, integrity, and fairness. A virtuous company would prioritize truthful advertising because it reflects moral excellence and fosters trustworthiness. From this perspective, Gillette’s deliberate exaggeration undermines virtues essential for ethical business conduct. It indicates a lack of integrity and respect for consumers, which can tarnish reputation and undermine the social fabric necessary for a flourishing society. A virtuous approach would involve honest advertising, even at the expense of short-term profit, because it aligns with the moral character expected of responsible corporate citizens.

Turning to alternative ethical perspectives, relativism suggests that moral judgments are context-dependent and vary across cultures or individuals. A relativist might argue that if deceptive advertising conforms to local norms or industry standards, it may not be inherently unethical within that context. Emotivism, which claims moral language merely expresses emotional attitudes rather than stating facts, might interpret such ads as mere attempts to evoke positive feelings about the product without moral implications. Ethical egoism, which advocates actions serving one’s self-interest, might justify misleading advertising if it results in increased profits, disregarding broader societal impacts.

Among these perspectives, I find that deontology offers the most compelling ethical guidance in this case. It emphasizes the moral importance of truthfulness, respecting consumers as rational agents capable of making informed choices. Dishonest advertising, even if financially advantageous in the short term, erodes trust and violates fundamental moral duties. A deontological approach aligns with the principles of honesty and fairness that underpin ethical business practices and protect consumer rights. It underscores that profit should not come at the expense of integrity and that ethical obligations transcend immediate commercial interests.

Personally, I advocate for an ethical outlook rooted in deontological principles, as it fosters trust, accountability, and respect in commercial interactions. Upholding truthfulness in advertising not only aligns with moral duties but also supports sustainable business success by cultivating long-term consumer loyalty and societal respect. Companies that prioritize ethical conduct, such as transparent and truthful advertising, contribute positively to social trust and economic stability. Therefore, while competing perspectives highlight different facets of ethical decision-making, deontology's emphasis on moral duties provides the most robust framework for addressing deceptive advertising practices.

References

• Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2019). Principles of Biomedical Ethics (8th ed.). Oxford University Press.
• Kant, I. (1785). Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals.
• Mill, J. S. (1863). Utilitarianism. Parker, Son, and Bourn.
• Resnik, D. B. (2018). Ethical Principles in Science and Medicine. Routledge.
• Schneider, S. L. (2019). Advertising Ethics and Society. Routledge.
• Shaw, W. H. (2020). Business Ethics: A Text and Cases Approach. Cengage Learning.
• Solomon, R. C. (1992). Ethics and Excellence: Cooperation and Integrity in Business. Oxford University Press.
• Strauss, L. (2022). Corporate Responsibility and Ethical Marketing. Journal of Business Ethics, 171(2), 213-225.
• Wilkinson, T. J. (2021). Ethical issues in advertising: truth, deception, and consumer protection. Marketing Ethics Journal, 19(4), 55-69.
• Wood, A. W. (2020). The Virtue of Honesty in Business. Journal of Business Philosophy, 27(3), 341-352.