Limited paternalism and the salesperson: A reconsideration

Any paternalistic obligation a salesperson might have toward a client isnot, as was previously argued, determined or grounded in his/her being in a position of superior knowledge. Rather, the obligation stems first and most basically from the principle of non-maleficence. Beyond that, however, the particulars of any such obligation: who is vulnerable to being harmed, the harm(s) that might occur and even the kinds of actions that can reasonably be taken to protect a client from such harm, all flow from the fact that the salesperson-client relationship is fundamentally one of dependency and trust.Various reasons are given to support this view and to indicate both the comprehensiveness and the fruitfulness of this way of perceiving the sales situation. In particular, the argument rules out of consideration what would, on analysis, be self-defeating or contradictory behavior on the part of the client and it helps explain why a salesperson is not obligated to certain behaviors.George Brockway combines two quite distinct tracks in his background: the academic and business. On the academic side, he has a Ph.D. in Philosophy as well as two masters degrees. His emphasis within Philosophy was in applied ethics. Subsequent to earning his degree, Dr. Brockway held teaching positions at both the University of Richmond and the University of Wisconsin. More recently, Dr. Brockway was the co-owner and operating manager of a medium sized financial consulting firm in the U.S., where the emphasis was on planning for individual client goals, investment analysis and implementation. Currently, Dr. Brockway is on sabbatical in Europe, taking the time to reflect back on and combine these two tracks by teaching and writing in the area of business ethics. Prior publications include articles inThe Hastings Center Report and theFinancial Planning Magazine. Dr. Brockway was recently quoted inNewsweek Magazine on an area of investment analysis.