Telling the Partial Truth: Ethical or Unethical?
Telling the Partial Truth: Ethical or Unethical? Guan Huang 250547949 D. Proessel Philosophy 2074G March 27th, 2013 The article Advertising: The Whole or Only Some of the Truth by Tibor R. Machan states that only telling the partial truth is ethical in advertising. I completely agree with the author’s standpoint and am trying to defend his viewpoints by supporting in four aspects. Firstly, I am going to prove Machan’s position that sales associates are selling a combination of product, environment and service.
Although there will be various prices for the same product at different stores essay writer australia, sales associates are not obligated to provide all of the locations that sell the product, and the price of said product at each location. Second, I am going to defend Machan’s position towards consumer beware. Thirdly, I will argue against potential criticism by strongly supporting Machan’s position— commercial advertising should be forgiven for putting one’s best foot forward.
Finally, I will highlight the definition of essential truth versus the whole truth to support Machan’s point that failing to tell the whole truth is ethical with some boundaries. In Leiser’s argument, suppression veri is unethical because the salesperson may use the technique of price deception, which is concealing the fact that their product can be purchased at a far lower price elsewhere. As Machan says, “it is legitimate for customers to seek satisfaction from the market, we must keep in mind that customers often seek various combinations of satisfaction, not simply product or price satisfaction” (Machan 586).
Machan claims that when a customer is buying a product, he or she is not just looking for the product itself and the price. He or she also adds many other factors such as certain location of the store, customer service during the purchase, and store environment into consideration. These various combinations of satisfactions cannot be ignored. Buying a cup of Starbucks coffee in the Starbucks coffee shop compared to purchasing a bottle of Starbucks coffee in the grocery store can be a good example.
The Starbucks shops don’t just sell coffee; they sell an atmosphere (Daniel R. ). People go to Starbucks usually not for just a cup of coffee, but the combination of product including relaxing atmosphere in Starbucks store, the friendly service they provide, other Starbucks products that could be also bought etc. But purchasing at a supermarket also can be seen as a combination that includes self-service, a package of Starbucks in bulk, and convenience. The combinations are simply valued differently, and thus are priced differently.
As a result, this proves Machan’s position that sales person is selling the combination of the product and that price deception proposed by Leiser is inconsistent. After proving a classical form of egoism as the most appropriate method to morally guide business conduct, Machan holds the position that to promote one’s rational self-interest, “a merchant could be acting with perfect moral propriety in not offering help to a customer with the task of information gathering” (Machan 588). Thus, it is morally correct to answer only part of a question, or even deflect a question from a customer to avoid lying to them.
As long as the merchant does not lie, it is perfectly ethical to communicate to the customers with a sole goal of selling the product (not caring for the customers’ personal interest). Buyers should take the responsibility to gather information. For example, McDonald’s posts all of the nutritional information of their foods on the company’s website. It is the customers’ personal responsibility to go on the website to find the information, and not the servers’ responsibility to inform the customers of the caloric or sodium content while placing the order.
Machan’s position here is that information is available (through various forms communication) and the customer must not rely on the merchant to receive this, but take a proactive role while deciding on their purchases. Machan holds the position that commercial advertising should be forgiven for putting one’s best foot forward. To prove this, he demonstrated that even apart from advertising, people often enough advance a biased perspective on themselves, their skills, looks, and so on (Machan 585) first by using the example of CV and dating to show how people give others an overstated first mpression. Then by claiming commercial relationships usually take place between strangers (Mahan 589), he finally reaches his position. In his example, people will highlight his/her advantages and try to diminish his/her disadvantage as much as possible when going to a date or sending a resume to a potential company he/she may work for. At this point, the potential criticism may claim that it’s a false analogy by comparing commercial advertising as going on date or sending a CV. People show their best image on a date or people listing all their asset in a resume is their private business.
It is their own interest to do so. But in terms of commercial advertising, advertiser is in his or her public life. There is no difference between an advertiser and a doctor or journalist in some ways. Advertisers should take some responsibility to play as a public role, thus to give some probable benefits for people on the other side. With this false analogy (Exhibit 1) the potential criticism may claim that Machan’s position that commercial advertising should be forgiven for putting one’s best foot forward is less convincing. I will argue against this potential criticism in support of Machan’s position.
To begin with, the potential criticism commits a classic problem of causal oversimplification. The line of reasoning here is that because advertiser should take some responsibility to play as a public role, so he or she has the obligation to give some benefit for people on the other side. This argument is solely based the altruism school of thought. However, the potential criticism has not indicated any other schools of thought in which the argument could be plausible, but only with basis of altruism can this line of reasoning (where helping each other is key) be applied (Exhibit 2).
However, as Machan argued in his paper, only the most robust form of altruism, a form where “none is left to be the beneficiary of human action, can be a candidate for the morality to guild merchant” (Machan 588). In reality, the robust form of altruism is too extreme to be possible in society which proves that the possible opposing view is incorrect. The potential criticism also argues that the example of a date and CV is a false analogy to commercial advertising since private issues are different from public issue. Let’s consider what would happen if a rather lazy person pplied for a company with a well-written resume or if a very sloppy man was given a makeover and then goes on a date. With these enhancements, the rather lazy person has a possibility of being hired by the company, and the rather sloppy man could get a second date. Thus, the company and the girl may be harmed from people’s putting best foot forward in private issue situation. The company could have a bad employee (laziness) and the girl may realize that what seemed like a well-groomed man is actually not and that she has wasted her time.
As customers can also suffer from sellers putting their best foot forward, we find that in terms of result, there is no difference between private issues and public issues. So we do not need to focus on whether or not the issue is personal or public. The answer seems to be straightforward: the example of date and CV can be seen as a good analogy to commercial advertising and those examples can be used to reach Machan’s position— commercial advertising should be forgiven for putting one’s best foot forward.
Machan also holds the position that from a robust or classical ethical egoist standpoint, “the [essential truths] about an item or service being traded should be told” (Machan 591). Essential truths can be further thought of as information regarding the function of product when utilized under normal circumstances. So when a customer buys an air conditioner, it is expected that it will keep a room cool in the summer. This is different from the whole truth, since failing to tell the essential truth will violate the principle of an honest transaction, which is more important to oneself than competitive advantage (Machan 589).
For a merchant, the truth should not be concealed just to obtain the competitive advantage. On the other hand, the whole truth also includes the information regarding what is incidental or merely closely associated with the essential truths about a product. This information is not important and it’s truly not possible to tell all. Machan holds the position that essential truth should be told, but not the whole truth. Many examples can be found in the real world can be used to support Machan’s position. In the pharmaceutical industry, companies must list all the functions as well as side effects of the drug on the package.
This information is essential because when we buy medicine, we must know what the function of the medicine is, and whether or not it is safe to take in our situation. Many drugs are not safe for pregnant women to take, and they must be informed of it. This would be essential information that must be given, whereas other locations where the same drug is available is not essential information about the product and can be kept to the seller. As I proved above, only telling the partial truth is ethical in commercial advertising.
Merchants sell metaphorical package of goods when selling a single product, because they are also selling the store’s environment, and their service in addition to the product. Customers are all different, and some may place higher value in location of the store or attitude of the salesperson than price, so when the sales associate fails to speak of other locations selling at a lower price, this is not price deception. Different stores may have different combinations of satisfaction, and thus it is completely ethical to avoid presenting information about other stores.
It is important for merchants to always put their best foot forward and present only the most valuable aspects of their product. There is no need to provide the customers with more information than they need, as buyer beware is a very realistic aspect of our world. We cannot provide all the information for everything we are telling others about, so customers should have the initiative to do adequate research before deciding on a purchase. Merchants are only obligated to provide the most essential information needed about the product.
Thus, when advertising, it is completely unnecessary for merchants to tell the customers everything about the product. As long as the merchants are not lying to the customers, telling partial truths about products is a very ethical form of advertisement. Exhibit 1 Public Life Public Life Private Life Private Life Doctor or journalist Doctor or journalist Commercial advertising Commercial advertising Not a good reason to prove Not a good reason to prove Sending a CV Sending a CV Going on a date Going on a date Exhibit 2 Altruism Altruism
He/she should give some benefit for people on the other side He/she should give some benefit for people on the other side Advertiser should take some responsibility to play as a public role Advertiser should take some responsibility to play as a public role Work cited Tibor R. Machan. “Advertising: The Whole Truth or Only Some of the Truth?. ” Allooff and Vaidya 584-592. Fritz Allooff and Anand J. Vaidya. Ed. Business in Ethical Focus an Anthology. Canada: Broadview, 2008. Print. “The Starbucks Culture” Daniel Rein. Web Feb, 10, 2007
