A Framework for Assessing Immorally Manipulative Marketing Tactics

A longstanding debate exists in both academic literature and popular culture about whether non-informative marketing tactics are manipulative. However, given that we tend to believe that some marketing tactics are manipulative and some are not, the question that marketers, their critics, and consumers need to ask themselves is that of how to actually determine whether any particular marketing tactic is manipulative and whether a given manipulative tactic is, in fact, immoral. This article proposes to operationalize criteria that can be used by marketers for making such determinations and attempts to provide some clarification toward our under- standing of the concept of manipulation and the conditions for the moral acceptability of manipulative marketing practices. It argues that a marketing tactic is manipulative if it is intended to motivate by undermining what the marketer believes is his/her audience’s normal decision-making process either by deception or by playing on a vulnerability that the marketer believes exists in his/her audience’s normal decision-making process. Such a tactic is morally objectionable on several grounds, which make it morally impermissible unless outweighed by sufficient “redemptive” moral considerations.     

The Ethics of Marketing Good Corporate Conduct

Companies that contribute to charitable organizations rightly hope that their philanthropic work will also be good for the bottom line. Marketers of good corporate conduct must be especially careful, however, to market such conduct in a morally acceptable fashion. Although marketers typically engage in mild deception or take artistic license when marketing goods and services, these sorts of practices are far more morally troublesome when used to market good corporate conduct. I argue that although mild deception is not substantially worrisome with respect to the marketing of most goods and services, it is a far greater moral blunder to use such methods in the marketing of good corporate character. These erode trust and demonstrate alack of adequate respect for the moral good. In light of these concerns, I suggest that such practices must be re-examined when applied to the marketing of corporate character and good conduct. Finally, I develop a revised set of ethical guidelines that are needed in order to address the problems peculiar to the marketing of morally praiseworthy behavior.     

Two views of business ethics: A popular philosophical approach and a value based interdisciplinary one

I distinguish between two problems related to business ethics. (1) How can business ethics help morally conscientious business people to resolve moral problems in business? (2) Given the widespread belief that immorality, or at least amorality, is too prevalent in business, how can one discover both the sources of business amorality and immorality and make business as morally respectable an institution as possible? Philosophers who have concerned themselves with business ethics have emphasized (1), i.e., they consider the normative ethical principles applicable to solving moral questions in business. Although some benefit can be derived from this approach, there are a number of problems with this position. I then argue that, in considering (2), we ought to analyze business life styles (ideals) that have determined the character of American business people, and show both their negative and positive moral consequences. This analysis reveals the morality, or lack of it, in modern American business, possible changes in business morality, and possible ways of developing a desirable and viable business ethic. In a sketchy way, I show how this project can be developed.     

Moral theory and defective tobacco advertising and warnings (the business ethics of Cipollone v. Liggett Group)

Traditional moral theories help corporate decision-makers understand what position consumers, like Rose Cipollone, in Cipollone vs Liggett Group, will take against cigarette manufacturers who fail to warn of the dangers of smoking, conceal data about addiction and other dangers, from the public, as well as continue to neutralize the warnings on cigarettes by deceptive advertisements. John F. Quinn teaches philosophy and management at the University of Dayton. He did his doctoral studies at the University of Washington in philosophy and his legal doctorate at the University of Dayton. Recently new to business ethics, after years of teaching medieval philosophy and aesthetics, he brings a knowledge of business law and management to his work in business ethics. His book with J.M.B. Crawford on The Christian Foundations of Criminal Responsibility, an integration of medieval moral theology and the common law tradition of criminal responsibility, will soon be published by Mellon Press. He also practices law in Ohio in select corporate issues.     

Impact of employees’ perceived threat of market competition on unethical marketing and selling practices: Moral disengagement and ethical leadership

This study draws on the social cognitive theory to examine the effect of perceived market competition on employees’ unethical marketing and selling practices. The boundary conditions associated with this relationship were examined, and we posit that perceived market competition is related to unethical marketing and selling practices through the mediating mechanism of moral disengagement. We further propose that ethical leadership moderates the relationship between the perceived threat of market competition, moral disengagement, and tendency toward unethical marketing and selling practices. We tested our hypotheses with a sample of 387 employees working in the banking sector in Pakistan. Our results suggest that moral disengagement had a full mediation effect between the perceived threat of market competition and tendency of employees toward unethical marketing and selling practices. Moreover, ethical leadership moderated the relationship between moral disengagement and the tendency of employees toward unethical marketing practices. The research findings indicate that when field employees encounter threat perceptions due to market competition, they have a propensity toward engaging in unethical marketing and selling practices when they can activate moral disengagement. This study also found that ethical leadership negatively moderates the relationship of moral disengagement with employees’ tendency toward unethical marketing and selling practices.     

In defense of sharks moral issues in hostile liquidating takeovers

In this essay we defend the view that from a purely rule-utilitarian perspective there is no sound argument favoring the immorality of hostile liquidating buyouts. All arguments favoring such a view are seriously flawed. Moreover, there are some good argument favoring the view that such buyouts may be morally obligatory from the rule-utilitarian perspective. We also defend the view that most of the shark repellents in the market are immoral. If we are right in our arguments there is no justification, moral or otherwise, for any form of legislation that would constrain the practice of hostile liquidating buyouts. Robert Almeder earned his Ph.D. in Philosophy at the University of Pennsylvania, is co-editor of Business Ethics (Prometheus Press, 1987), is on the Editorial Board of Journal of Business Ethics, and teaches at Georgia State University.David Carey earned his Ph.D. in Philosophy at the University of Pittsburg. He has written extensively on Business Ethics and is currently teaching philosophy at Whitman College in Walla Walla, Washington.     

The ethics of investing

In this paper, I examine various popular notions concerning the ethics of investing. I first consider and reject the absolutist view that it is always wrong to invest in “evil” companies and the view that what makes investments in evil companies morally objectionable is the fact that by making such investments, investors are taking steps to benefit from the wrongdoing of others. I then defend the view that what makes certain investments morally objectionable is the fact that by making such investments, investors enable others to do wrong. According to this view, when weighing the purchase of a certain company's stock, investors should ask themselves the following question: “Would this sort of investment, if made by many people, enable others to do wrong?” If the answer to this question is yes, and if an investor nevertheless makes the investment in question, he can justifiably be accused of moral wrongdoing.     

The ethics of insider trading

Despite the fact that a number of economists and philosophers of late defend insider trading both as a viable and useful practice in a free market and as not immoral, I shall question the value of insider trading both from a moral and an economic point of view. I shall argue that insider trading both in its present illegal form and as a legalized market mechanism undermines the efficient and proper functioning of a free market, thereby bringing into question its own raison d'etre. It does so and is economically inefficient for the very reason that it is immoral. Thus this practice cannot be justified either from an economic or a moral point of view.

相似文献   

“Moral Distance” in Organizations: An Inquiry into Ethical Violence in the Works of Kafka

In this paper, we demonstrate that the works of Franz Kafka provide an exemplary resource for the investigation of “moral distance” in organizational ethics. We accomplish this in two ways, first by drawing on Kafka’s work to navigate the complexities of the debate over the ethics of bureaucracy, using his work to expand and enrich the concept of “moral distance.” Second, Kafka’s work is used to investigate the existence of “ethical violence” within organizations which entails acts of condemnation and cruelty purportedly in the name of ethics. Kafka’s work provides insight into the processes of moral distancing across a range of organizational contexts including highly formal as well as more informal settings. The paper enriches the concept “moral distance” by identifying the existence of facilitators of moral distance beyond the mechanisms of formal rationality that have been the focus of existing studies. We argue that Kafka’s intense portrayal of “ethical violence” points to an aporia at the very heart of organizational ethics.     

Pop-Ups, Cookies, and Spam: Toward a Deeper Analysis of the Ethical Significance of Internet Marketing Practices

While e-commerce has grown rapidly in recent years, some of the practices associated with certain aspects of marketing on the Internet, such as pop-ups, cookies, and spam, have raised concerns on the part of Internet users. In this paper I examine the nature of these practices and what I take to be the underlying source of this concern. I argue that the ethical issues surrounding these Internet marketing techniques move us beyond the traditional treatment of the ethics of marketing and advertising found in discussions of business ethics previously. Rather, I show that the questions they raise ultimately turn upon questions of technique and the ways in which technologies can transform the fundamental means by which relationships are established and maintained within a social environment. I then argue that the techniques of e-commerce are indeed transforming the means by which businesses relate to consumers, and that this transformation is affecting the applicability of our previous ways of demarcating the imperatives determining the limits of accessibility between consumers and businesses. Properly addressing the ethical status of the techniques of e-marketing as such necessarily moves us to consider the changes that Internet commerce are having upon the norms that govern individuals in their relations with others.     

Nobody is as Blind as Those Who Cannot Bear to See: Psychoanalytic Perspectives on the Management of Emotions and Moral Blindness

Although apparently irrational, people with seemingly high moral standards routinely make immoral decisions or engage in morally questionable behavior. It appears as if under certain circumstances, people become in some enigmatic way blind to the immoral aspects of what they are doing or consequences of their immoral actions. This article focuses and reports on a psychoanalytic inquiry into the role of emotions and the unconscious management of unwanted emotions in promoting moral blindness. Emotions are essential to the conscience, self-sanctioning, and advancement of moral behavior. Notwithstanding moral ideations, a sufficiently strong counterwill may create incongruence between moral intentions and actual desires or behavior. The unwelcome experience of acute moral emotions such as guilt and anxiety is likely to activate a range of psychological defense mechanisms and unconscious processes to manage these emotions. It is argued that the management of these emotions through undue avoidance, inappropriate regulation, or lack of regulation, can bypass self-sanctioning. As result, the condition of moral blindness can develop or be sustained. The psychoanalytic explanations offered contribute to the understanding as to how emotions in combination with the unconscious mind can cause moral blindness in any person, notwithstanding high moral standards and good intentions. Improved understanding of moral blindness represents an important scientific step in improved understanding of our moral and immoral selves, with all its complexities, conflicts, and contradictions.     

Free Exchange for Mutual Benefit: Sweatshops and Maitland’s “Classical Liberal Standard”

Ian Maitland defends sweatshop labor on the grounds that “A wage or labor practice is ethically acceptable if it is freely chosen by informed workers” (he calls his view “the Classical Liberal Standard,” CLS). I present several examples of economic exchanges that are mutually beneficial and satisfy the requirements of the CLS, but, nonetheless, are morally wrong. Maitland’s arguments in defense of sweatshops are unsuccessful because they depend on the flawed “CLS.” My paper criticizes Maitland’s arguments in defense of sweatshops, but I do not claim that his conclusions are false—I do not claim to have shown that the labor practices Maitland defends are morally wrong. I argue that some of the disagreements about sweatshops between Maitland and his critics depend on disagreements about the answers controversial questions in ethical theory. In the absence of definitive answers to those questions, there are no decisive arguments for or against Maitland’s view about sweatshops.     

The American marketing association code of ethics: Instructions for marketers

This article addresses the two main obstacles — ignorance and conflict — that block the pathway to ethically proper conduct, both generally in business and specifically in marketing. It begins with a brief examination of theories of the moral good which emphasizes the Greco-Roman humanistic tradition and the Judeo-Christian religious tradition. A professional code of ethics, such as the code of the American Marketing Association, is meaningful only if human beings are regarded as making moral judgments that, objectively speaking, are morally wrong, that is only when the code is considered a set of moral absolutes.Following that, the question of ignorance is dealt with utilizing the American Marketing Association code of ethics. The specific items in that code are related to the three central principles of economic justice: equivalence, contributive justice, and distributive justice. In the second section, the question of conflict is encountered in the context of four other ethical principles — double effect, culpability, good end and bad means, self-determination — that are likely to be helpful in dealing with two cases that are especially instructive because they are limiting cases: the dilemma and the hard case. The role of the hero or champion in conflicts is underscored.Edward J. O'Boyle is Research Associate and Associate Professor of Economics at Louisiana Tech University. His current research interests include quality-productivity-ethics, ethics in marketing, and improved pedagogies for teaching ethics. His articles have been published inMonthly Labor Review, Review of Social Economy, Linacre Quarterly, Louisiana Economy, International Journal of Social Economics, Marketing Education Review, andBusiness Insights.Lyndon E. Dawson, Jr., is Professor of Marketing at Louisiana Tech University and Lecturer at the Poznan School of Management in Poland. He received his Ph.D. in 1967. His current research interests focus upon ethical issues in business and the application of current marketing theory and practice in Eastern Europe. His recent co-authored works in ethics appear inJournal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Business Insights, andMarketing Education Review.     

Business and Game-Playing: The False Analogy

A number of business writers have argued that business is a game and, like a game, possesses its own special rules for acting. While we do not normally tolerate deceit, bluffing is not merely acceptable but also expected within the game of poker. Similarly, lies of omission, overstatements, puffery and bluffs are morally acceptable within business because it, like a game, has a special ethic which permits these normally immoral practices. Although critics of this reasoning have used deontological and utilitarian arguments to show that deceit in business is just an immoral as it is in any other realm of human practice, little attention has been paid to the fact that the argument is one of analogy. The analogical argument for business' special ethic is only as strong as the alleged similarities between business and game-playing. This paper argues that this analogy is quite weak and incapable of either providing much insight into business or of offering a reason to think that the ethics of business are, or even could be, like those of a game.     

Tips in business transaction: A moral issue

Has one the right to expect favor because he or she has given tip? Or is one obligated to bend the rule of law in favor of his friend from whom he has received tip or favor? The paper undertakes an analysis of the different tip situations, the different forms of tip and attempts to show in what sense the term tip is applicable and finally examines the usefulness of tip and its possible effect on a moral conscience. The paper argues that tip considered as a transaction wherein money or favor is offered for the purpose of gaining an advantage illegally is nothing but bribery and as such immoral. Tip as a “forced gratuity” is argued to be an organized exploitation. The paper then concludes that tip in its proper sense of voluntary and gratuitous transaction can maximize individual utility and enhance social solidarity, noting at the same time, that its possible adverse effect on the moral conscience is worth taking cognizance of.     

Civil disobedience and whistleblowing: A comparative appraisal of two forms of dissent

This paper compares and evaluates two forms of dissent: civil disobedience — protests by citizens against the laws or actions of their government; and whistleblowing — disclosure by employees of illegal, immoral or questionable practices by their employees. Each is identified, the conceptual issues are distinguished from strategic and normative ones and parallel moral questions posed. Should one first dissent within prescribed channels before going outside them? Should one act publicly or is withholding one's identity permissible or desirable? What is the basis and limits for one's loyalty to one's country or employer, and how can transgressing these limits be morally justified?     

The Natural Link Between Virtue Ethics and Political Virtue: The Morality of the Market

Against the idea that market economy is something greedy and immoral, we will set out the idea that market economy based on firms has a very positive moral content: the possibility of excellence of human action. Firms based on people acting together, sharing the culture of the organization, toward virtue-based ethics, create and distribute most of the economy’s wealth, innovate, trade and raise living standards. We will present a criterion which states that social coordination improves if the process of creation of individual possibilities of action, which is carried out in the social institutions—in our case, the firm—is extended. There is a retention of possibilities that is formed in the institutions and transmitted culturally. In that moment entrepreneurship emerges, the creative tension that expands, maintains, or diminishes the possibilities of action. Hence, the firm is the institution that carries out a very important practice: fostering new possibilities of individual action. In this paper, we will adopt the point of the view of the acting person. The reality we observe is personal action within its cultural and institutional dimensions. A theory of personal action in societal institutions bridges the way from virtue-based ethics toward ethics of institutions.     

基于经济伦理视角的我国上市公司过度融资问题研究

上市公司过度融资现象在我国普遍存在,基于经济伦理的视角,上市公司过度融资的危害体现在以下方面：控股股东在义利观方面的倒置导致公司经营业绩下降;上市公司义利关系的扭曲恶化了公司治理机制;义利观模糊状态下政府监管不到位严重阻碍经济社会的健康发展。上市公司过度融资产生的根本原因是不健全的股权结构安排,上市公司伦理责任的缺失和政府经济伦理意识的不健全分别是其产生的内外原因。只有有效增强公司股东和政府部门经济伦理意识,并不断健全以职业经理人市场及相应监管制度为代表的制度安排,才能克服企业过度融资现象,实现宏观与微观经济的良性互动。     

Sweatshops and Free Action: The Stakes of the Actualism/Possibilism Debate for Business Ethics

Whether an action is morally right depends upon the alternative acts available to the agent. Actualists hold that what an agent would actually do determines her moral obligations. Possibilists hold that what an agent could possibly do determines her moral obligations. Both views face compelling criticisms. Despite the fact that actualist and possibilist assumptions are at the heart of seminal arguments in business ethics, there has been no explicit discussion of actualism and possibilism in the business ethics literature. This paper has two primary goals. First, it aims to rectify this omission by bringing to light the importance of the actualism/possibilism debate for business ethics through questions about the ethics of sweatshops. Second, it aims to make some progress in the sweatshop debate by examining and defending an alternative view, hybridism, and describing the moral and practical implications of hybridism for the sweatshop debate.