Graduate studies at Western
Journal of Business Ethics 116 (2):403-413 (2013)
|Abstract||An orthodox view in marketing ethics is that it is morally impermissible to market goods to specially vulnerable populations in ways that take advantage of their vulnerabilities. In his signature article “Marketing and the Vulnerable,” Brenkert (Bus Ethics Q Ruffin Ser 1:7–20, 1998) provided the first substantive defense of this position, one which has become a well-established view in marketing ethics. In what follows, we throw new light on marketing to the vulnerable by critically evaluating key components of Brenkert’s general arguments. Specifically, we contend that Brenkert has failed to offer us any persuasive reasons to think that it is immoral to market to the vulnerable in ways that take advantage of their vulnerability. Although Brenkert does highlight the fact that the specially vulnerable are at greater risk of being harmed by already immoral marketing practices (e.g., deception, manipulation), he fails to establish that the specially vulnerable are a unique moral category of market clients or that there are special moral standards that apply to them. Moreover, even if Brenkert’s position were theoretically defensible, the practical implications of his position are far less tenable than he suggests. If our criticisms are sound, then Brenkert and others who endorse his position are seriously mistaken regarding how one can permissibly market products to vulnerable populations, and, in addition, they have improperly categorized certain morally permissible marketing practices as being immoral|
|Keywords||Ethics Marketing Vulnerability Market clients Exploitation Consumer interests|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
George G. Brenkert (2008). Marketing Ethics. Blackwell Pub..
George G. Brenkert (1998). Marketing and the Vulnerable. The Ruffin Series of the Society for Business Ethics 1998:7-20.
George G. Brenkert (1998). Marketing to Inner-City Blacks. Business Ethics Quarterly 8 (1):1-18.
Mary Lyn Stoll (2002). The Ethics of Marketing Good Corporate Conduct. Journal of Business Ethics 41 (1-2):121 - 129.
Stephanie R. Solomon (2013). Protecting and Respecting the Vulnerable: Existing Regulations or Further Protections? Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 34 (1):17-28.
Jeri Lynn Jones & Karen L. Middleton (2007). Ethical Decision-Making by Consumers: The Roles of Product Harm and Consumer Vulnerability. [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 70 (3):247 - 264.
Paul F. Camenisch (1991). Marketing Ethics: Some Dimensions of the Challenge. [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 10 (4):245 - 248.
M. Joseph Sirgy & Dong-Jin Lee (2008). Well-Being Marketing: An Ethical Business Philosophy for Consumer Goods Firms. [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 77 (4):377 - 403.
Jeanette Kennett & Steve Matthews (2008). What's the Buzz? Undercover Marketing and the Corruption of Friendship. Journal of Applied Philosophy 25 (1):2–18.
Shlomo Sher (2011). A Framework for Assessing Immorally Manipulative Marketing Tactics. Journal of Business Ethics 102 (1):97-118.
Bodo B. Schlegelmilch (1998). Marketing Ethics: An International Perspective. International Thomson Business Press.
Donald P. Robin (1991). Epistemological Structures in Marketing. Business Ethics Quarterly 1 (2):185-200.
Janet Borgerson & Jonathan Schroeder (2002). Ethical Issues of Global Marketing: Avoiding Bad Faith in Visual Representation. European Journal of Marketing 36 (5/6):570-594.
John F. Gaski (1999). Does Marketing Ethics Really Have Anything to Say? – A Critical Inventory of the Literature. Journal of Business Ethics 18 (3):315 - 334.
Praveen Aggarwal, Rajiv Vaidyanathan & Stephen Castleberry (2012). Managerial and Public Attitudes Toward Ethics in Marketing Research. Journal of Business Ethics 109 (4):463-481.
Added to index2012-09-06
Total downloads12 ( #101,487 of 755,113 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,366 of 755,113 )
How can I increase my downloads?