JOURNAL OF MARKETING DEVELOPMENT AND COMPETITIVENESS
When Philosophers Disagree A Philosophical Analysis of Marketing Advertising
Author(s): Gabriel Carachilo, Bohdan Pikas
Citation: Gabriel Carachilo, Bohdan Pikas, (2018) "When Philosophers Disagree A Philosophical Analysis of Marketing Advertising ," Journal of Marketing Development and Competitiveness, Vol. 12, Iss. 2, pp.26-29
Article Type: Research paper
Publisher: North American Business Press
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.