Is this ethical?

[Anti-Flag]

I wasn't sure whether to have an ethical or scientific thread on this(or possibly political or philosophical), so I've started it here but feel free to move it depending on which way it develops.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110104/ap_on_sp_ot/us_balance_bracelets

Essentially they are using celebs to sell a product that has no science behind it to the gullible public.
Is it ethical to market something in such a way with no science and take advantage of those who believe it? Is it even taking advantage if they willingly believe it? One of the things I'm most interested in is does the psychological effect of a product have merit as a tangible benefit and therefore not qualify it as taking advantage of someone? In other words if they're ok with it then why shouldn't it be perfectly fine, or does it depend on their mental capacity and harm done? Where do we draw the line and why there? Why protect from some "scams" but not others?

 

[elte]

Hi there, it's only ethical for those involved in the sale who believe it works based on what it is said to do in the advertisements. If it happens to work via a psychological effect similar to the placebo effect, and those involved in the sale know that and don't tell the target audience, then it isn't ethical for those people.

 

[cosmictraveler]

There's no laws saying that something can't be marketed that doesn't do anything that it says it will. In many instances the stores that sold the product will take it back and give a refund but most people don't bother to do that. As an example take the board game Ouija, can it really communicate with the dead or find out what the future holds? Of course not but people buy it every day and are happy they did. Remember the pet rock craze a few years ago? They put stones into a box and sold them as pets! People bought allot of them as well because people are very gullible. It is up to you to determine what you want to buy not up to the stores to decide for you. That's the free market I'm sorry to say for I agree with you that these products are useless and should not be sold, but I'm not gullible.

 

[Anti-Flag]

Hi there, it's only ethical for those involved in the sale who believe it works based on what it is said to do in the advertisements. If it happens to work via a psychological effect similar to the placebo effect, and those involved in the sale know that and don't tell the target audience, then it isn't ethical for those people.

That was my initial reaction, but I was thinking, just what harm have they done? What if they agree to refund those who it hasn't worked for?

There's no laws saying that something can't be marketed that doesn't do anything that it says it will. In many instances the stores that sold the product will take it back and give a refund but most people don't bother to do that. As an example take the board game Ouija, can it really communicate with the dead or find out what the future holds? Of course not but people buy it every day and are happy they did. Remember the pet rock craze a few years ago? They put stones into a box and sold them as pets! People bought allot of them as well because people are very gullible. It is up to you to determine what you want to buy not up to the stores to decide for you. That's the free market I'm sorry to say for I agree with you that these products are useless and should not be sold, but I'm not gullible.

I agree, many things are "mis-marketed" so to speak, infact it seems a core part of advertising and the very thing that led to the inclusion of small print.
This begs the question from me however, why do we prosecute con-men, and what exactly defines you as such as opposed to an opportunistic businessman? Is this a very blurry line and should there even be a line? Are we protecting the innocent(or in this case stupid) or are we just doing it when it suits us? Should we protect them?
Also as I said above, if a product has a placebo effect that makes it work, is it in fact a valid product after all?

I'd say I'm obviously disappointed from an ethical viewpoint as I see it as immoral to take advantage of gullible and let's be honest here, stupid, people. That said I understand some people think that's ok, and money is very important to them. There are also a great many things that we could include under the same umbrella, perhaps not ones we would all agree on.
Still, $30million projected profit, are my morals worth the price?

 

[cosmictraveler]

That said I understand some people think that's ok, and money is very important to them. There are also a great many things that we could include under the same umbrella, perhaps not ones we would all agree on.
Still, $30million projected profit, are my morals worth the price?

There have been law suits that people , before , have won but many don't because of slick lawyers hired by those unethical companies. The few lawsuits that were won weren't given much but a few dollars and a slap of the wrist to those businesses doing the con job. Until the government or courts start awarding large pay outs for these type of cases we won't see an end to this type of bad product marketing anytime soon. Now I understand that if you lose the case you have to pay those businesses what the court orders plus all of their expenses!

 

[elte]

That was my initial reaction, but I was thinking, just what harm have they done? What if they agree to refund those who it hasn't worked for?

Just in case, I am going change the way I said it in case there was some ambiguity. It's only ethical for those on the selling side who believe it works based on what they say it does in the advertisements. If it happens to work via a psychological effect similar to the placebo effect, and those on the selling side know that and don't tell the target audience, then it isn't ethical for those people. ”

That was my initial reaction, but I was thinking, just what harm have they done? What if they agree to refund those who it hasn't worked for?

Indeed, I thought about that too. Later I thought that it is allowing deceptive practices on the selling side. Refunding for dissatisfied customers might actually be how the FTC would address the situation, yet I still dislike the deceptive approach on the selling side.

 

[Anti-Flag]

There have been law suits that people , before , have won but many don't because of slick lawyers hired by those unethical companies. The few lawsuits that were won weren't given much but a few dollars and a slap of the wrist to those businesses doing the con job. Until the government or courts start awarding large pay outs for these type of cases we won't see an end to this type of bad product marketing anytime soon. Now I understand that if you lose the case you have to pay those businesses what the court orders plus all of their expenses!

I guess some things aren't worth the fight. Seems so wrong that justice is more about who has the most capital. :shrug:

Just in case, I am going change the way I said it in case there was some ambiguity. It's only ethical for those on the selling side who believe it works based on what they say it does in the advertisements. If it happens to work via a psychological effect similar to the placebo effect, and those on the selling side know that and don't tell the target audience, then it isn't ethical for those people. ”

My opinion from the article is that they're aware in this case. I suppose ethically if the seller believes it works it could be called ignorance rather than an intentional con. I do wonder if there should be a law in place to prevent claims that haven't been scientifically verified.
I guess we allow marketing to go too far though - I'm on the verge of using this as a reason against capitalism

Indeed, I thought about that too. Later I thought that it is allowing deceptive practices on the selling side. Refunding for dissatisfied customers might actually be how the FTC would address the situation, yet I still dislike the deceptive approach on the selling side.

Same. We seem to take completely the wrong approach to these kinds of things and I wonder if we'd be making the world a better place taking it away, or a worse place for stamping on everyones harmless beliefs.

 

[iceaura]

Lewis Thomas - this guy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_Thomas - once wrote an essay on a stint he did as a reviewer or consultant or the like (memory fails me) for the official Federal agency in charge of banning charlatans from the medical device market.

He pointed out that it was very important to do that, because the damage done by the unscrupulous could be (and often was) so very great: people in misery or under looming threat would bankrupt, injure, cripple, even kill themselves and their loved ones in consequence of pursuing worthless devices, nostrums, and services cleverly marketed.

Enormous resources of time, invention, money, and opportunity would be frittered away, while genuine benefits and opportunities starved for them.

But at the same time, he recounted how, say, devices found to be worthless by conventional research would nevertheless have attracted firm support and recommendation by patients with no monetary stake; he notes the heartbreaking and desperate letters (from agency files he read in his advisory capacity) pleading for the continued availability of replacements and parts for a kind of air filter found ineffective and banned, from people who believed their lives had been dramatically improved, for example.

And he observes that many comforts we take for granted today - aspirin, bandaids - would probably have failed official review had they not been grandfathered in. And many times in legitimate cases, such as sassafras tea, the risk is small - and who is evaluating the benefit? How? Some people swear by sassafras tea, and the extra risk is less than many other ordinary vices or habits.

So the issue seems to be one of wisdom, balancing of worlds. Government agencies ain't so good at that.

 

[elte]

I guess some things aren't worth the fight. Seems so wrong that justice is more about who has the most capital. :shrug:


My opinion from the article is that they're aware in this case. I suppose ethically if the seller believes it works it could be called ignorance rather than an intentional con. I do wonder if there should be a law in place to prevent claims that haven't been scientifically verified.
I guess we allow marketing to go too far though - I'm on the verge of using this as a reason against capitalism .

I've concluded since 9-11 that the fight-against bent of capitalism is more detrimental to society, on the whole, than its benefits are helpful.

Same. We seem to take completely the wrong approach to these kinds of things and I wonder if we'd be making the world a better place taking it away, or a worse place for stamping on everyones harmless beliefs.

I have experienced some personal instances that involve my use of products for things that they weren't intended for. Yet, I still favor the policy of frowning on unsubstantiated marketing claims because they generally have a bad moral influence.