Thursday, January 9, 2014
Money vs. Morals
It is obvious that consumers are responsible for their own decisions. What isn't obvious is the level of responsibility companies have to their consumers. Should companies sole focus be profit, at any "cost" to their consumers? What moral and ethical obligations do they have to their customers? For example, although they CAN (legally), SHOULD (ethically) cigarette or even fast food corporations sell a product that can be detrimental to the health of their consumers?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Companies engaged in business are mainly focusing on profits while putting aside the bad effects of their products for human bodies and concern of customers’ health while some products, such as cigarette and fast food, are detrimental. It is not acceptable to public and need to change. They are obligated with responsibility regarding to moral of people who are purchasing their goods. In order to extend the sale as widely as possible, companies use advertisement which proves to be a fairly effective method to enlarge the business but is also misleading. Take cigarette as an example: cigarette advertisements rely almost exclusively on psychological manipulation. Alluring images of power, prestige, glamour, success, and vitality appeal are held before the public's eye, creating a positive association between "the good life" and smoking. However, in reality, cigarette smoking can cause many types of cancer, especially lung cancer, which is not mentioned in any cigarette advertisement. Before they try to sell products to the buyers, they should let them the bad aspects of the products in the first place. Ethically, cigarette or fast food corporations should not sell a product that can be detrimental to the health of the human body because the behavior of selling unhealthy goods is considered to be anti-social, against humanism.
ReplyDeleteWhile I do agree that is it morally wrong for fast food and cigarette companies to knowingly sell products that are harmful to our health, they are still legally allowed to sell what they want, and no one can deny them this right. You cannot blame the fast food and cigarette companies for the growing health problems facing the nation, just because they sell these harmful products, does not mean you have to buy them. By now, everyone should know the consequences from cigarettes and fast food, but that still does not stop millions of people continuously buying these products. Sure one can argue that it is morally wrong, but that does not mean these companies need to stop. These companies are thinking like any other business, they want to sell their product to make money. They advertise only the positives about their product in order to raise profits. Advertising the negatives about their products would result in the complete opposite of what they are trying to gain.
DeleteAlthough I agree with Yundai's point that cigarette ads do not emphasize the possible consequences of smoking, I would like to point out that every box of cigarettes has the surgeon general's warning that smoking causes cancer, is detrimental to the user's health, etc. Some users do not care about the health risks at all even when they see anti-smoking advertisements and that warning, like how some students attend health class and then go home and do exactly what they were told not to do. A business’ main goal is to profit and make money. So long as the company is doing so legally by hiring legal citizens and meeting minimum wage requirements, I do not see how they can then be told that they should not be making so much money because people died by abusing their product. As a consumer, you can choose what you do and do not purchase, so companies should have full control of what they do and do not sell. As Fabrizio pointed out, the public is aware of the possible health risks of eating too much fast food, but the public wants a scapegoat. They can either blame the USDA and FDA for not recalling contaminated meat (which they do not have the power to do) or they can blame the fast food company and the slaughterhouses for their practices. Since so many of you were opposed to greater government involvement in the meatpacking industry during our last Socratic seminar, I am guessing most of you, as well as the general public, would choose to blame the companies (assuming you do not take full responsibility for your own actions).
DeleteI agree with Alexyss. Customers do know the consequences of the product they are buying. However, even by them knowing the harm it causes their health they buy the product anyways. A business is just trying to make money and advertisements make their product attract the customers. Maybe a business should not sell a harmful product but you can't blame them because it's the customer choice whether to buy it or not. As Alexyss referred to the cigarette boxes, it does provide the information of the health risk a consumer is taking. Even with providing the information the consumer still continues to buy it, which is the consumers fault because they are aware and have decided themselves to put their health at risk. The business is selling to product for it's profits, the customer is the one who decides if they want to buy the product or not. At the end of the day it all lays in the decision of the customer who decides whether to buy the product or not, the business is just providing the product.
DeleteI feel as if they should be able to sell their product. I understand that these products are detrimental toward the health of the consumer, but it's the consumer that continually buys the product. Although some might argue that it is not ethical to sell such products, it is legal. Companies don't worry about consumers health because they are creating a profit. I believe it is up to the consumer to make the proper decision when it comes to buying products that they know are harmful to them or even others.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree
DeleteI agree, as well. If people want the businesses to stop selling these products they should either stop buying them to force them to go bankrupt, or push lawmakers to make selling these products either better regulated or illegal, altogether.
DeleteI also concur. Leaders condone ethical complaints and continue to sell their health demolishing foods is because they can’t be touched unless a significant percentage of consumers stop purchasing their items. Unfortunately, due to major factors such like poverty, mass advertisement, and unemployment that percentage of people needed to protest in order to impede major fast food lines would be unattainable.
DeleteI agree with Yundai, somehow the big companies should advertise how their product does harm. Cigarettes do harm, and the public should be further educated about the effects. Many instances from smoking a lot of cigarettes there is lung cancer, gum cancer, and many more diseases associated with cigarettes. There should be like a list on the back of a cigarette box of the active ingredients. Similar to medicine boxes, and have what are some side effects. Cigarette companies should also fund other companies who are against cigarettes. These other companies would use the funds to create commercials about cigarettes.
ReplyDeleteConsumer should always be responsible on knowing what they consume. I believe that companies have a right to sell whatever they want, but they should also give details of what is in their products that way consumers have to consider their own personal health before buying the company's product. A company should have all the health issues their products can cause, instead of hiding this kind of information. By trying to hide the facts about their products makes the company, and their products look bad. If they won't stop selling things that are bad for their consumers the very least they can do is warn people about their products. People who are actually obtaining these things shouldn't be blinded from whats inside of what their buying.
ReplyDeleteI agree that there may be some companies that are hiding this important health information from they're customers. however, when the consumers know what they're putting into their bodies through many opposing advertisements and health warnings on the companies products they still decide to buy these products. Again the companies goal is to make a profit and their only responsible is to produce the product. Consumers are fully responsible for choosing what they may or may not put into their bodies. Instead of acting oblivious to the health issues at hand they should stop buying the products.
DeleteWhenever a company begins to sell a product, their main goal is to make money off of it. Eventually companies began to set aside their moral values knowing that their product causes problems. Essentially, they have the legal right to sell these products. However these companies take advantage of this freedom. At some point, they realize they are in the wrong, so they begin to make small changes to make their customers more aware. For example, tobacco companies began placing surgeon general warnings on cigarette packages. Having these warnings on packages consumers can't put complete blame on the company itself. I have to agree with Fabrizio, consumers have to realize they have the choice to pick up the product or nit, knowing there are risk. Its not like we don't have access to all this information. No one is forcing them to get it. In the end, morally they shouldn't sell these products to the public, but legally they have the right to.
ReplyDeleteA companies main priority when they sell a new product is profit. They don't have the thoughts of whether this product is good for the consumer or not. I do believe that they should think of the consumer first and not launch something that is "good" for the consumer. Companies now and days honestly don't care anymore about a consumers well being. For example during a the fast food nation movie a women lost her son to salmonella, she expected at least an apology and she didn't even get one. We live in an age where companies just don't care. I believe that they should start putting in a little more consideration on others well being. Honestly it isn't fair to the consumer. For example, most human being don't question what they're consuming until someone tells them that it isn't good for them and most of the time it isn't the company thats telling them it bad for them. If companies don't feel that they can stop selling a certain product at least have the decency to alter the product to make it better for the consumer. But the companies aren't all at fault in this situation, people should start thinking about what they're buying or consuming.
ReplyDeleteI'm really angry because I had used the app on my iPod to write my post, but for some reason it didn't publish and now I have to remember what I wrote.
ReplyDeleteI mostly agree with Alexyss on this post. Cigarette and fast food companies are providing what could be dangerous items, if they are abused.
My parents both smoke and on every package there is a warning that states: it is dangerous to smoke and could cause lung cancer. This is not that new as it was mandated by law in 1970. I feel that the cigarette industry is not as guilty as fast food, though. Commercials and advertisements for cigarettes were made illegal long ago for targeting small children. Now, there are definitely more "anti-smoking" and "e-cigarette" advertisements. While fast food is everywhere!
I am really tired of hearing that you can't blame the consumer and assuming that people are so ignorant that they can't be held responsible for their own actions. I would think that a commonly educated adult, and even child, would know that smoking a pack a day and scarfing down Big Macs is not healthy. It is not that the public does not know this, it is that they don't want to. Companies could, and should, make information available for those that want to investigate the consequences of their products, but there will still be a percentage of consumers that won't care. As long as there is that information made available, I don't believe companies should be restricted on what they can or should sell. Is it our business to infringe upon someone else's right to use or eat what they want?
I know I'm probably going to get a lot of counter arguments for this one, but I thought of it.
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of cigarettes and the selling of a harmful product, what about states that are now working on legalizing marijuana? There aren't any cases of cancer spawning from its use, but it is a hallucinogen that can be dangerous. If, or when, marijuana is made legal, what should become of its advertisement? Do you think states will care about the side effects if they're making money?
Personally I don't think any major issues will come out of the legalization of marijuana. Yes while the side effects may be harmful, think about already legal things that are even more harmful than that. For instance, alcohol, advertised on television every single day and extremely dangerous if used improperly, same with this drug.
DeleteIf anything it will become alcohols equal in the eyes of the law. Regulation laws, "please smoke responsibly" advertisements, and other things of the sort. Also it may even reduce the amount of crime that occurs due to the selling of marijuana. If it's legal then you should be able to pick it up at your local store if you're of age. So no more friendly neighborhood shady drug dealer who lives in his mothers basement, or thug on the street threatening one's safety.
Not saying that I agree with it being legalized though. A drug is still a drug. It's already legal for medical use and that's how it should stay.
Aidan, do you seriously think that marijuana would require advertising? If illegal dealers can move it now, I don't think a legitimate store will have much of a problem. (Haha, I did not answer your actual question.) I think side effects would be listed on the bag, like any other drug.
DeleteWhilst I do partly believe that a company should remain ethical and treat their customers with honesty (mainly because if it wasn't for the customer they wouldn't have money in the first place, and they should do everything in their power to ensure their loyalty), I also believe that you cannot solely blame the business for their product.
ReplyDeleteAs practically all of my peers have stated, the consumer isn't being forced into buying products, they make the decision on their own. And saying that they're innocent isn't a viable reasoning. As an adult they are responsible for what they spend their funds on. And whether or not the companies are remaining true to them, almost everything done in the dark has come to the light. All side effects of cigarettes are known, as well as the dangers of eating unhealthy food. It's nobody's fault that people choose to remain uneducated, whether it is or isn't on purpose. The only one that the finger should be pointed to is them. Sure it's messed up that a company is making a quick buck off of someones incompetence, but that's how everyone makes money nowadays. People are too absorbed in what they've got going on to open their eyes and see the big picture. And until they do-- I suppose that's just how the cookie crumbles.
I agree with Ebony's statement as a company should be ethical and be honest with their customers yet, companies nowadays don't care about the harmful side effects that can result in eating fast food or smoking cigarettes. Companies have lost their moral ways a very long time ago and it is sad that companies base their ways on greed instead of having standards and limits when it comes to selling their products to the public. In the mind of a huge corporation it would be beneficial to sell with the sole purpose of gaining at any cost because the question always is how to get more and more money. i don't believe that fast food companies should sell products that can be detrimental to the health of their customers because in a way it is like betraying the trust of the people that buy their foods on a regular basis. There are a constant amount of commercials, ads, radio and other advertisements that show a juicy looking big mac but turns out to be a huge disappointment in reality. i don't blame big cigarette corporations for their greedy ways because it's a dog eat dog world out there and in order to stay on top and be a part of the competition they must do whatever it takes if it means putting people's health at risk.
DeleteOne's answer to this question greatly depends on one's own ethics. Personally, I tend to be more of a Darwinist in the sense that if you are unable to make good decisions and you are hurt from them, then you more than likely deserve to be hurt by them-Survival of the Fittest. If you look at today's social pyramid as more of a food chain with McDonalds CEOs on top and people who have gained health issues gained solely from consuming fast food on the bottom, it seems obvious that the former are in Penthouses at 6,000 feet in the air and the latter are 6 feet under.
ReplyDeleteNow, while I tend to be more of a Darwinist in social ethics I do not identify as one mainly because the fact that fast food may harm you is hidden from the masses by the executives. If no one was ignorant to the industry's potential harm and people knew full well that enough McChickens will get you sick or kill you, then you can fully blame the consumer.
While people dying is usually considered a bad thing, the company executives can not be blamed for conforming to capitalism. In a truly free market economy, if I can make a million dollars by selling hugs or two million dollars selling heroin I will gladly start finding jerkin addicts. My point is that to understand why executives partake in all these controversial practices you have to understand their point of view; while we can't cometely empathize with other human beings, it is important to understand that executives go against your ethics to cut costs and raise prices so that they can buy a bigger boat so they can finally catch that big shark in JAWS. Is anyone but Ms. Wilsherap still reading this far along or even getting what I'm giving?
Dang Edward what happened?! Took you quite a while to respond this go round.
DeleteLosing your touch, perhaps?
Nah, I saw it but couldn't really formulate an answer so I just forgot about it. I also thought I would give everyone else a fighting chance.
DeleteI strongly agree with you Ally. If the government chooses to make it legal for these companies to sell products that are known to be detrimental to one's health then they have every right to sell their product and make profits whether it is ethical or not. In this economy, for these big companies to survive they have to make sure that they are able to provide a product that will be bought by consumers and in return give them a good profit in order for their company to succeed. Even though some of these companies make their profits by selling cigarettes which affect more than the consumer, besides their responsibility to advertise warning on their cigarette box label it is the consumer’s responsibility to choose whether or not they want to support this company by helping them financially by purchasing their product which helps them to keep making profits and keep their production level going. The only way these companies would be forced to take responsibility for the effects that there products can have on consumers is if the government steps in and establishes strong regulations and penalties for those companies that choose to ignore their regulations. However the government would probably never choose to do that because many aspects of our government are paid off to leave these companies alone.
ReplyDeleteI have to agree with both Ally, and Jacqueline, because in business, I doubt that the salesmen take into consideration, their ethics and morals, to then make a profit. If the government states it’s legal, the final say is on the consumer, it’s up to that person’s level of education and beliefs, whether or not they will consume that product. To a person of good morals, this may seem unethical, but in reality no one can truly call this unethical when consumers are buying a consuming their products. It’s all on the hands of the people who purchase those products. After all those people are the ones with the will to make those salesmen, rich, and encourage them to continue buying that production. Fast food can all change, just as the cigarette business with the ideas of the people and culture altering as well. For the benefits of both the common people and those buying the product. With new ideas, people will move forward, not backwards, and a new era of fast food can be taken form it. To create a better healthier virgin of fast food, perhaps, with the help of the local farms and businesses that will be producing the produce, over having a factory system that is destroying our ways of living.
DeleteI don't really agree with Jackie after reading FAST FOOD NATION. Yes we do have a choice in whether to smoke but what if it isn't as obviously bad as smoking. Companies shouldn't have the right to neglect and deceive consumers that want a better choice. Why do consumers get that choice taken away from them. Either it should be healthy or not heathy at all, not both not healthy. It is also hazardous to sell products that can not only affect the consumer that bought the product but also family members and friends that might catch viruses from theses foods. The big Companies are to blame for millions of deaths caused by negligence and greed. When will it all end? When it's too late to change anything ? Money is great but at what cost? Killing innocent people and children?
ReplyDeleteConcerning the topic of moral vs. money in influential companies, I believe that corporations are responsible for insuring the safety of costumers with respect to the conditions of the patent of the item they are selling. However, if there are no clear malfunctions of the item from the time of purchase and is used incorrectly by the consumer, the company cannot be held liable.
ReplyDeleteRegarding the use of cigarettes, some cigarette companies will even post warnings and will try to raise awareness towards the harmful effects of the use of tobacco, hence most consumers should be knowledgeable towards what they are consuming. Therefore, if he or she chooses to place himself in a life threatening position, it is their right and they will have to pay the consequences. Although cigarette companies know that tobacco is addictive and could lead to addiction, most users should have been educated before taking the risk of smoking; hence, companies would be making more profit of a consumer’s lack of knowledge and or poor sense of self and the company could not be held accountable because the consumers chose to risk their health.
The difference between the ethical applications towards, for example, children’s toy consumers and fast food consumers is that toy companies have less protection under a law suit for selling a defective toy unlike fast food companies whom are protected knowing that unless foods are tainted, the costumer is choosing to put their health at stake.
The same notion applies to McDonald corp. Have we ever come to notice why after receiving thousands of hate mails and protests, McDonald’s corp. leaders condone ethical complaints and continue to sell their health demolishing foods is because they can’t be touched unless a significant percentage of consumers stop purchasing their items. Unfortunately, due to major factors such like poverty, mass advertisement, and unemployment that percentage of people needed to protest in order to impede major fast food lines would be unattainable. People whom only have a few dollars to spend for lunch may prefer to visit a fast food restaurant rather than purchase a head of lettuce for $2.50. Fast food companies will always be protected by the notion that it is the consumer’s responsibility to not abuse, misuse, or avoid unhealthy foods items. Fast food companies are more interested in profit, than the ethical aspects that concern to their customers; however, they must realize that their frequent consumers (children) may not live long enough for them to reap profit from in the future.
I agree with Alexyss's response because in my opinion, a business is able to survive with the fact of knowing that their consumers will buy their products. If a company makes a product that will kill people but is in all forms legal enough to sell and the people decide to continue buying it, they will sell it. No matter how bad the product may be for a person, I do not believe a business who is making billions of dollars a year off of that product will stop any type of production for it. From my perspective, money goes above morals.
ReplyDeleteCompanies do not care what their customers are intaking as long as they are the ones making money. That is why we are so corrupt today. They don't have any definite moral obligation to make sure that their customers are eating exactly what they say they are eating. Although people would like for it to be that way, they still eat it the way it is and that's why the companies continue to do it. In this particular instance the choice is money because if we were to follow the fast food industry under morals, the companies wouldn't be producing enough product to fulfill the demand of the country.
ReplyDeleteDirectly to the question yes the consumer is responsible for what decisions they decide to make with their money. However if these companies aren’t held to some level of responsible there is no balance between the two just chaos. Although, these “Companies”- who are treated as people, while actual people are treated and seem to be worth less than machines- are trying to make money, there comes a point where this system will not work any longer. The companies and the consumers are a two part system, which if the companies keep driving the consumers into a one way hole, they will eventually fell in as well. Though the companies are worried about that now or the future because all they can see is the dollar signs in front of them. As for fast food, monopoly of farms and the genetically enhanced seeds in the next 50 years there will no naturally grown/ genuinely organic food anymore. In the long term, will not be good for any specie and or even the planet earth itself; peoples health problems will only increase as the natural food source in which we get our daily nutrient from to live will now no longer exists. These “Companies” (well the people running them) in the end of the road are in the same boat as their consumer now, they just can’t see it yet. However, companies aren't people; they hold no really value when compared next to a life. Money will never buy happiness or everlasting joy, thus by these companies making money by slowly killing their consumers, which really means nothing is really happening for them.
ReplyDeleteI apologize if this was not what you were asking for.