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, 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
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, 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