One of the most known definitions of ethics is the one from Aristotle: Human actions from the point of view in their rightness or wrongness. Ethics should concern “personal virtue” and with every decision, one should be honest, good and caring. A definition that is so idealistic and simplistic is not helpful in finding a solid definition: right and wrong are probably just as normative as the term ethics. When we try to give a definition of the term ethics it appears from the literature that you can look at it from two different philosophical views, also know as “ethical dualism”. The first view is the teleological view, also known as the consequentialist view or utilarism, which is based on the results of certain actions taken. Whereas the other view, deontology, is more based on average behavior and obligations to other people. Teleology is based on the ethical valuation of the consequences and deontology has to do with the ethical values of the principles.
Ethics within businesses can be found in many fields, such as accounting, human resources, competition, business-to-business relations and marketing. For now we are only interested in marketing ethics, one of the most popular subjects these days in business studies. Ethics within marketing can be defined as the way in which the moral standards of a company are being reflected on marketing decisions, behavior and attitudes.
Within marketing ethics both of the views described above play a role, the idealistic view of the behavior of a business creates a perfect balance and is known as the Janus-Headed Model. This model is named after the famous Roman god with two faces (one looking forward, and the other one looking backward) who protected the entrance of Rome. In the model the teleological way is associated with the head that looked forward and Janus’s head looking backward signifies the deontological way. For the teleologists this means that they tend to look in the future for results, chances and innovations while trying to find a “human” solution which also covers the best results. Deontologists do the opposite; they look in the past, or are at least interested in following traditions and written or unwritten laws and rules. Their decisions and outcomes are based on other decisions in the past. By looking at marketing ethics, corporations engaging in unethical marketing give a slight preference to the head of Janus looking back. As long as their marketing plan complies with the law or codes of conduct of their company and other companies, they see no reason for it to be unethical. They know consumers have “the right to know” to a certain extent, and they provide the minimum information about the product they sell. On the other hand, they refuse to look from a teleological point of view: creating the greatest good for the greatest number of people (consumers) is often not what they reach with their marketing programs, especially not through their advertising. Unethical marketing in this paper is therefore not something that is against the law, but something that might be harmful to the consumer. It is in the marketing in which the company might be called an ethical egoist with more self-interest than common interest. They do not look at the consequences of their actions (teleological) but only at the right or wrong of their base decisions (deontology). It is not said that this is by definition wrong, and that the corporations should take responsibility for their consumers.