Why Advertising is Often Immoral.

Advertising has far surpassed that of the Ancient Egyptian adverts scribbled onto pieces of papyrus. It is now something which appears in every corner of our lives. Almost all forms of modern day entertainment will feature ads in some way, whether it's a film trailer before a movie, an advert for car insurance in between a tv show, a targeted ad on our facebook feed or a promotion in a newspaper. In fact we can't even walk down many streets without seeing an advert on the side of the bus or on a notice board. This increase in advertisement is annoying to many and most would not say it was a good thing, given the disruptions we face from it. Yet, it does serve a purpose, that is to inform us of products and services we may not have known about. However, this doesn't really seem to make up for all its faults, especially as, I shall argue here, in many cases advertising is immoral.

This week I stumbled upon a recently published an article written by Peter Gildenhuys (you can find it here). Which discusses why advertising is immoral in most cases, by essentially concluding that advertising is immoral because most advertisements present lies. Lying is often seen as immoral, as it is intuitively considered the wrong thing to do and it is only in certain contexts that lying is acceptable, that is when the immorality of lying is outweighed by the immorality of not lying. Advertisements generally fall under sophistry, that is when  someone 'tries to slickly persuade people of something without caring about the truth or falsity of their claim'. When we act as sophists we 'try to persuade others by what should not persuade them' as when we lie we try to make some believe what they shouldn't believe (that which is not true). Indeed, most advertisements in some way try to persuade others to buy a product by means which shouldn't persuade them, and therefore so often is the case that many advertisers perform an immoral act by placing their adverts in public. You may question how this is the case as it is rare for companies to outright lie in their adverts, in terms of saying something like their product can bring the dead back to life, for example. Well the sophistry is often found in adverts when a phrase such as 'this is the best car available' is uttered. In such a situation one is not trying to sell the car on the basis of its positive features but is instead trying to persuade you with a notion that is not proven fact, and is essentially a lie. Indeed, a person maybe persuaded to buy a car based on the lie that it is the best around rather than by the cars actual qualities. In such cases the advertiser is a sophist and is immoral in selling their product by persuading someone on a falsity. 

Of course, such phrases aren't always dropped in advertisements, yet almost all advertisers act as sophists. This is because often in advertising one is not persuaded of a products value, but is instead persuaded by factors unrelated to the product. For example, when a product has a celebrity endorsement one is often persuaded to buy it because it is associated with the celebrity rather than on the products own merit, similarly one is persuaded to purchase certain furniture on the basis that the ad is witty and abstract thus memorable. Indeed, in these cases the advertiser deliberately use these methods because they know it is a more effective method in persuading someone to buy a product than by just highlighting the products positives. Therefore, most advertising remains immoral because advertisers try and persuade you to buy a product not through the merits of the product itself but through things which are unrelated, such as celebrity endorsements, things which should not persuade you to invest in a certain product. Indeed, the only forms of advertising in such cases which aren't immoral is those why simply show you the product and tell you straight its positives (think of certain DFS adverts). 

Another way which I personally view certain forms of advertisement to be immoral has to do with targeted advertisements in particular. That is advertisements you often see on web pages which are advertising products related to your searches or your information shard via social media. For example, you may on your newsfeed be advertised a university if on facebook you are noted to be younger than 25 or you may be advertised a video game if you have been searching for another video game in your web browser. The reason i think this is particularly immoral is because it invades your privacy. Indeed, it is often thought that one has a a right to privacy, this comes as intuitively this seems correct. Indeed, most would view it to be wrong to spy on a neighbour through their windows and most would not want to be spied on themselves. Therefore, if one were to infringe on a strangers privacy it would almost always be immoral. That is of course unless the immorality of infringing upon someones privacy is outweighed by some other factor, I.e. safeguarding a child. But of course advertising will never breach your privacy in a moral way.  Indeed, advertisers perform an immoral breach of your privacy when they use targeted ads as they either tap into your private data or allow someone/something else to do it for them. Your what should be private interests and essentially thoughts are infringed upon in order to be advertised to, it shouldn't be the case that your private thought of what is the best university to study at should lead to you being advertised universities. This seems more invasive than even peeping in someones window. Indeed, we would view it as wrong to riffle through a strangers journal so we should also view it as wrong for someone or even AI to riffle through what should be private data to advertise to us, because such thoughts we google search and do not share openly should remain private to us as we would want our thoughts in our journal to remain private.

 Of course, one could argue that online we do have to consent to our data being shared. Yet, this is not a strong enough reason for our private data to be shared with advertisers as it is often the case that people don't read these policies before agreeing to them or that if we don't agree we can't use the service which could be extremely important to use. As such tech companies use manipulative tactics which either rely on people missing a detail or needing to use a certain website to essentially trick people into signing over their private data. It is then through the results of this manipulative tactic that advertisers use targeted ads. But the fact that consent was given through manipulation and with little actual free choice we can hardly say it is now moral for companies to dive into our private information. Just as we wouldn't think it was moral to pry through an elderly strangers journal if she only consented on the basis that a stranger tricked her into thinking he was her son. Indeed then, the fact that Advertisers deny us the right to a certain level of privacy, that is privacy in our own thoughts, by advertising to us through targeted ads indicates that any form of targeted ad is immoral as it infringes on our right to privacy. 

Indeed then on many levels advertising seems immoral.  Whether its targeted ads or adverts which are not a simple straightforward selling of the product.