Presentation on theme: "Moral Rule:It is (always) wrong to tell a lie. No, b/c: 1) Nazi cases. 2) National security cases. 3) some white lies. 4) etc."— Presentation transcript:
Moral Rule:It is (always) wrong to tell a lie. No, b/c: 1) Nazi cases. 2) National security cases. 3) some white lies. 4) etc.
Moral Rule:It is (always) wrong to tell self-interested lies.
Moral Rule: It is wrong to tell a lie for financial gain. Three interesting counter-examples (from students) 1) Ex-con lies about being a con to get a job and feed his family. 2) Robber case. (Robber on the street demands “all your money” – you give him $5 and lie and tell him that’s all you have.) My response: Grotius’ response: here the robber has no right to the truth (same as in Nazi cases, only involving money). 3) Waiter/customer case. (Customer asks waiter, “do you like my haircut?” – concerned about his tip, waiter says “yes”). My response: Plausibly, customer doesn’t want truth, wants compliment, like some death bed scenarios.
Revised Rule: It is wrong to tell a lie for financial gain, unless 1) “victim” has no right to truth, or 2) there’s good reason to think she doesn’t want the truth.
“Ordinary” notion: deceptiveness = intentional misleading. Problems (as applied to ads): a) who and how many need be misled? b) proving intent?
Legal (FTC) notion: Re: b) deceptive ads are those w/ a “tendency to mislead”. Re: a) Whom? Even 1 person? - “Ignorant Person Standard” http://www.notarealthing.com/2010/06/olde-frothingslosh/ Clairol example Now: “Modified Ignorant Person” -in practice, often determined by focus groups.
Big point : 2 big differences between “deceptive advertising” and ads that are simply false.
Implied Claims Profile bread: fewer calories per slice, good for weight loss. Kraft singles. Vs. mere puffery Stricter FTC scrutiny when claims: involve health “sound” scientific