This article about the French government addresses the common debate of who is responsible for the exchange of information that protects an individual. Is it the responsibility of the individual to obtain all the information relevant to his/her health or the responsibility of the company to willingly dispense this information at the expense of their business? What is the ethical solution? (This may remind you of the uninformed consumer debate regarding the mortgage system.)
(Submitted by Tara Vaughn)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I believe that there should be a boundary, a limit, on the amount that a company is able to embellish their product in order to sell it to the public. Although the article itself described the idea that enhancing photos to produce a more perfect illusionary world may be wrong, I believe that the ideas are quite applicable in today's society. Many of today's products are over exaggerated in order to sell a lesser valued item to customers. For example, the picture on Mcdonald's menu selection look quite different from the actual product. I believe that this particular trend in society's products is wrong, and should be corrected to present reality. People should not be tricked into buying products; rather they should buy the product willingly.
ReplyDeleteIn context to the question, I believe that it is the responsibility of the company to dispense information regarding an individual's health on a product. It would be wrong of the companies to misrepresent the product to sell a few more of it. Furthermore, it would be detrimental and despicable if companies look over and fail to acknowledge possible health concerns with their products if their products could potentially harm customers.
Overall, it seems silly to chose earning a quick buck by harming the lives of others. Although this happens everyday, it is still ethically wrong. The companies should be required to inform the customers if there are health concerns with the product.
I find it kind of funny that the government wants to place a warning label on photos. Have we really reached such a level that we need a label to tell us when a photo has been doctored, or that a piece of art has been created in Photoshop and not "by hand"? I understand Ms. Boyer's motivation in her drive to put warning labels on doctored images, it is certainly not permissible to enhance products or people to the point that they can no longer be considered real just to gain a buck, but is she going to put warning labels on animated movies just because they do not depict real life? Will we need to tell children that deer cannot actually talk, as they do in Bambi, or that you cannot make your house fly away using a large number of helium balloons, as is done in Up? Will she put a warning label on anything that may inspire a child's imagination because imagining things is as far from real life as one can get?
ReplyDeleteI do agree that there needs to be some limit to marketing schemes that utilize doctored images. I think Tully's example of photos of McDonald's menu items is a fantastic example, we should not be told that we can order a beautifully crafted, fresh burger by pictures then recieve a slightly-grey imitation. However, at what point are we willing to relinquish our autonomy and allow businesses or governments tell us what is real and what isn't, or what is acceptable and what isn't? If autonomy is as important as we seem to make it, then it should be the responsibility of the individual to gather all necessary information and make decisions for him- or herself. Granted, companies should not act malevolently by distributing products that could harm their consumers. However, consumers should be aware of when something can be harmful; if it is, consumers should be able to educate themselves and refrain from purchasing said products.
Although I see this boundary as something valuable in the utilitarianism model, I don’t think it’s fair. Warning labels due tend to bring more attention to problems and help individuals buying products. However, couldn’t someone else rather than the company bring this to attention? Why should companies have to sacrifice for the greater good? I don’t think they should be responsible for that which sells and harms the advertisement for their product at the same time.
ReplyDeleteI always find it ridiculous that there are warning signs on cigarettes that are placed by the companies themselves. I think Campaigns funded by the government such as the TRUTH campaigns should suffice to inform the general public if there is a problem that the general public needs information on.
We live in a capitalistic economy, and people should be intelligent enough to realize that cigarettes are bad for them and that advertisements are photoshopped. It is the government’s responsibility to inform individuals and give resources to people so they understand the ramifications of using certain products or looking at something that might have been altered to make it seem like a better product. At the same time companies should be able to sell their product and try to convince consumers to buy them without having to cause harm to their own products and advertisements.
People should educate themselves with resources allocated to them by a source like the government or campaigns, but not by the companies themselves.
.
Although I see this boundary as something valuable in the utilitarianism model, I don’t think it’s fair. Warning labels due tend to bring more attention to problems and help individuals buying products. However, couldn’t someone else rather than the company bring this to attention? Why should companies have to sacrifice for the greater good? I don’t think they should be responsible for that which sells and harms the advertisement for their product at the same time.
ReplyDeleteI always find it ridiculous that there are warning signs on cigarettes that are placed by the companies themselves. I think Campaigns funded by the government such as the TRUTH campaigns should suffice to inform the general public if there is a problem that the general public needs information on.
We live in a capitalistic economy, and people should be intelligent enough to realize that cigarettes are bad for them and that advertisements are photoshopped. It is the government’s responsibility to inform individuals and give resources to people so they understand the ramifications of using certain products or looking at something that might have been altered to make it seem like a better product. At the same time companies should be able to sell their product and try to convince consumers to buy them without having to cause harm to their own products and advertisements.
People should educate themselves with resources allocated to them by a source like the government or campaigns, but not by the companies themselves.
.
This is a difficult question to answer especially considering the exponential rate of technological advances. It becomes harder to generalize what facts the public should be aware of, as the dangers of cigarette use were suggested. For example, the last vice-presidential candidate was reported to have argued that “dinosaurs and humans walked the Earth at the same time.” Wouldn’t that be a fact that would fall into the general information category? As the amount and sophistication of facts increases, what the public is expected to retain and apply to daily decisions which influence their health becomes a challenging dilemma.
ReplyDeleteI believe a deontological argument addresses this issue satisfactorily. If Kant’s credentials of forming an ethical argument are applied the moral issue at question could be is it okay for companies to deceive consumers as long as the company profits from it? This would likely not pass as universally ethical. Even if this were established incorporating it into marketing campaigns would vary with nearly every medium, each situation (images, product information, product harms, etc) can almost be taken separately. Using the same McDonalds example adding a subscript, “this image altered” would eliminate corporate deceit. Just as everyone knows the dangers of cigarettes it could be argued that everyone knows a happy meal never looks that good. Yet knowing that fact, McDonald’s slogan still remains Billions and Billions Served, proving business is still good even considering this knowledge. This is an easy example of consumers seeing quite clearly for themselves what they were told and what they got differ; yet, knowing this does not effect their choice to buy the product. For many products the realization is not that obvious and the deceit goes undetected.
The very good point was suggested about our autonomy and the role of the government to tell us what is or is not real. However, in some cases it has already reached the point where, as consumers, it is impossible to determine reality. It seems unrealistic to expect consumers to investigate the legitimateness of each product on the market while allowing marketers to falsify reality to increase profit and place the entire burden on the consumer when the facts are already known by the company. The burden should remain on the companies to produce good enough products to market so lies are not the sole reason for success.