Persuasive advertising,autonomy, and the creation of desire

It is argued that persuasive advertising overrides the autonomy of consumers, in that it manipulates them without their knowledge and for no good reason. Such advertising causes desires in such a way that a necessary condition of autonomy — the possibility of decision — is removed. Four notions central to autonomous action are discussed — autonomous desire, rational desire and choice, free choice, and control or manipulation — following the strategy of Robert Arrington in a recent paper in this journal. Replies are made to Arrington's arguments in favour of advertising. It is also claimed that the argument developed by Philip Nelson, which concludes that even if persuasive advertising does override autonomy, it is still in the interests of consumers to be subjected to it, is seriously mistaken. Finally, some caveats concerning informative advertising are presented. The author has recently received the degrees of B. A. and B. Phil. at Oxford University, and is presently working on a D. Phil. thesis, in which an ideal utilitarian/perfectionist theory is developed. It is hoped that this theory will supply plausible solutions to a number of problems in practical ethics. He has had an article, The Argument from Marginal Cases, published in Journal of Applied Philosophy, II, 2, 1985, and another, The Avoidance of the Problem of Evil: A Reply to McGrath will be published this year in Analysis.