When Philosophers Disagree A Philosophical Analysis of Marketing Advertising
Keywords:
Marketing Development, Competitiveness, MarketingAbstract
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.
Downloads
Published
2018-07-01
How to Cite
Carachilo, G., & Pikas, B. (2018). When Philosophers Disagree A Philosophical Analysis of Marketing Advertising. Journal of Marketing Development and Competitiveness, 12(2). Retrieved from https://articlearchives.co/index.php/JMDC/article/view/4478
Issue
Section
Articles