Case: Advertising and Children

An organization seeks to defend the integrity of the family and its values against the negative effects of advertising. In the company’s estimation, most persuasive advertising aimed at children is objectionable since it seeks to control parents’ buying decisions. However, there is obviously a difference between clearly deceptive advertising and advertising that is useful in promoting good habits.

The problem is that much advertising falls in between these two poles. The advertisement is not exactly deceptive, but neither does it support commonly recognized values. Its main purpose, as with almost all advertising, is to increase sales by “getting children to influence their parents’ choices.”

The company is grappling with various formulations of its position regarding advertising and children.

1. Why is advertising, when it concerns children, a special case?
2. Can advertising be said to violate the parent-child relationship?
3. What is the purpose of advertising? Is some (most?) advertising legitimate?
4. What qualities in human nature does advertising take advantage of?
5. Is all advertising that is directed at children “inherently manipulative” and therefore morally unacceptable?
6. How would you respond to this case using the theory of Duty Ethics?
7. Can you suggest a statement to express this company’s position concerning advertising directed toward children?

(adapted from Difficult Moral Questions by Germain Grisez, 1997)

Last | Ethics Contents | Next