When Philosophers Disagree A Philosophical Analysis of Marketing Advertising

Abstract

For years, scholars have been addressing the question “Is marketing, more specifically advertising, ethical?” Two of the most well-known arguments are proposed by Robert Arrington and Roger Crisp. Their debate is over whether advertising unfairly interferes with the autonomy of consumers. Arrington suggests that advertisers cannot remove a consumer’s basic free will. Crisp suggests that because consumers cannot know the effects of images on them advertisements have a harmful consequences on a consumer’s free will. There is still much debate over the topic of marketing ethics. A clear consensus has not been drawn nor has an answer has been revealed.