Abstract
This paper argues that product and advertisement are neither completely dependent nor completely independent. The advertisement of a bad product cannot be good. The advertisement of a good product is not necessarily good. In the case where consumer sovereignty cannot be assumed, the goodness of an advertisement depends solely on the goodness of the product. In the case where consumer sovereignty can be assumed, the goodness of an advertisement depends first on whether the product is good, and if so, whether the advertisement preserves individual autonomy.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Emamalizadeh, Hossein: 1985, ‘The Informative and Persuasive Functions of Advertising: A Moral Appraisal — A Comment’, Journal of Business Ethics 4, pp. 151–153.
Geach, H.: 1973, ‘The Baby Food Tragedy’, New Internationalist (August), pp. 8–12, 23.
Leiser, B. M.: 1979, ‘Beyond Fraud and Deception: The Moral Uses of Advertising’, in Thomas Donaldson and Patricia H. Werhane (eds.), Ethical Issues in Business, Prentice-Hall, Inc., pp. 59–66.
Medawar, Charles: 1979, Social Audit, Insult or Injury? (Social Audit Ltd., London).
Post, James E.: 1985, ‘Assessing the Nestle Boycott: Corporate Accountability and Human Rights’, California Management Review (Winter), pp. 113–131.
Santilli, P.: 1983, ‘The Informative and Persuasive Functions of Advertising: A Moral Appraisal’, Journal of Business Ethics 2, pp. 27–33.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
Kam-Hon Lee is Senior Lecturer in Marketing at The Chinese University of Hong Kong. His publications appeared in journals such as European Journal of Marketing and The World Economy.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Lee, KH. The informative and persuasive functions of advertising: A moral appraisal — A further comment. J Bus Ethics 6, 55–57 (1987). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00382948
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00382948