Monday, November 27, 2006
Truthfulness
During class, there was a debate as to whether any restrictions should be adhered to for advertisers. On occasion many points were made in support for no restrictions but, when pressured, supported restrictions, even though they said that they did support no restrictions. If advertisers should be held to any responsibilities to truth, it seems as if you support Reuss’ view.
However, the major argument against her statement is that the protection of the ignorant should not be protected because either they are adults or they are children who should be protected by their parents. But there should be a moral law for the corporations to tell the truth just as Kant believed that individuals should tell the truth. Obvious lies and distortions of the truth in advertisements should be considered not good business just as it would be bad for a person to tell lies. Thus, truth should be a requirement for business to meet. If a protein manufacturing company for herbal supplements knowingly put out a product with steroids in and a person buys that product with the idea that it is natural is not right. The manufacturer could not expect every individual to research every product the individual buys because the individual is given no reason to research the product. The person buying the product is not ignorant to the point of retardation but he was duped as an ignorant party. So it would be illogical to say that ignorant people should not be protected because everyone could be ignorant.
Furthermore, after a period of time, the sentient public would no longer trust any advertisement which would hinder the company’s growth.
Corporations should be held to ethical standards of truth; it is a necessity.
However, the major argument against her statement is that the protection of the ignorant should not be protected because either they are adults or they are children who should be protected by their parents. But there should be a moral law for the corporations to tell the truth just as Kant believed that individuals should tell the truth. Obvious lies and distortions of the truth in advertisements should be considered not good business just as it would be bad for a person to tell lies. Thus, truth should be a requirement for business to meet. If a protein manufacturing company for herbal supplements knowingly put out a product with steroids in and a person buys that product with the idea that it is natural is not right. The manufacturer could not expect every individual to research every product the individual buys because the individual is given no reason to research the product. The person buying the product is not ignorant to the point of retardation but he was duped as an ignorant party. So it would be illogical to say that ignorant people should not be protected because everyone could be ignorant.
Furthermore, after a period of time, the sentient public would no longer trust any advertisement which would hinder the company’s growth.
Corporations should be held to ethical standards of truth; it is a necessity.
# posted by Anonymous @ 3:11 PM 
