Advertising to Children: Acceptable As Is or Is There A Need For Regulation?
Companies are teaching and telling kids that they have to have this, that, and more through their persuasive advertisements. They have taught kids the common nagging phrase “I want, I want, I want,” they’re making overindulgence an acceptable trait, and they are convincing children that they are inferior if they don’t have one of the latest most popular products to hit the market. According to Solomon, The central virtue/ characteristic to leading a good life is moderation/self-control. This is apparently the exact opposite of what is being portrayed in advertisements directed toward children. The corporations themselves are not only promoting this behavior for their benefit, but they also obtain these same characteristics in regards to money. Advertisements toward children should be restricted and will be explained with reference to the ideas and philosophy of business ethics through Solomon, Locke, and Friedman.
According to Friedman, the social responsibility of a business is to increase its profits. He considers it to be ethical for a business to use its recourses in order to create an output of activities that generates and increases profits as long as it abides by the rules that are put in place. Corporations are now advertising in schools because it has proven to be easily marketable and it encompasses a substantial amount of young consumers. Creating product and brand awareness results in increased profits for the company. Since there are no rules or regulations made by the government restricting these corporations, they are within the guidelines of Friedman’s argument. Based on this argument, as long as the business is making a profit there appears to be no limit on how much the profit increases.
Advertisers, with reference to Locke, are justified to advertise at schools, on TV, through ads, and etc., by appropriating funds to these outlets. Locke’s argument states...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document