Crisp makes a credible argument that the Pongo Peach and Grecian Formula 16 ads were guilty of overriding the consumers' autonomy because they deceived the consumer by leading them to believe that the products were better than what they were. They used the consumer’s insecurities about themselves to make their products more appealing, causing the consumer to act on desires, rather than rationality. The problem with this type of advertising is that when people take a chance on something based on impulse, rather than facts. They risk their autonomy, which makes them want to purchase the product. I believe that Crisp’s rebuttal of Arrington’s four notions is valid. Autonomous desire is the first desire and fulfills the second desire, which is rational desire and choice. Free choice is the third desire, and finally, the fourth desire is control or manipulation. When it comes to the morality of “subliminal” advertising, my opinion is that it is simply business, and if business are going to profit, they have to use whatever tactic necessary to sell their product.
I think that autonomy is a fundamental value, especially for children as they learn and grow, so special sensitivity regarding advertising to children is desperately needed. Advertisements that are motivated by values are those that will consider the kind of values that the product creates. So advertisements may instill in their target audiences positive or negative elements. Therefore, advertisement targeting children does require special sensitivity because it may become a problem if it violates their right to privacy, honesty and autonomy. However, if they appeal to the children in the right way, with things that grab their attention and cause interest in a way that does not violate their autonomy, they will have succeeded in selling their product because in return, children will sell the product to their parents in order to get them to buy it. Although advertising is a huge industry, which is good for...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document