Journal of
Marketing Development and Competitiveness

Scholar Gateway

Abstracts prior to volume 5(1) have been archived!

Issue 5(1), October 2010 -- Paper Abstracts
Girard  (p. 9-22)
Cooper (p. 23-32)
Kunz-Osborne (p. 33-41)
Coulmas-Law (p.42-46)
Stasio (p. 47-56)
Albert-Valette-Florence (p.57-63)
Zhang-Rauch (p. 64-70)
Alam-Yasin (p. 71-78)
Mattare-Monahan-Shah (p. 79-94)
Nonis-Hudson-Hunt (p. 95-106) 


When Philosophers Disagree A Philosophical Analysis of Marketing Advertising

Author(s): Gabriel Carachilo, Bohdan Pikas

Citation: Gabriel Carachilo, Bohdan Pikas, (2018) "When Philosophers Disagree A Philosophical Analysis of Marketing Advertising ," Journal of Marketing Development and Competitiveness, Vol. 12, Iss. 2,  pp.26-29

Article Type: Research paper

Publisher: North American Business Press


For years, scholars have been addressing the question “Is marketing, more specifically advertising,
ethical?” Two of the most well-known arguments are proposed by Robert Arrington and Roger Crisp.
Their debate is over whether advertising unfairly interferes with the autonomy of consumers. Arrington suggests that advertisers cannot remove a consumer’s basic free will. Crisp suggests that because consumers cannot know the effects of images on them advertisements have a harmful consequences on a consumer’s free will. There is still much debate over the topic of marketing ethics. A clear consensus has not been drawn nor has an answer has been revealed.