Ethical Thought and Action

This essay argues that the costs of consuming unhealthy food exceeds any of the potential benefits. It focuses on aspect of unethical behaviour in food marketing, in particular the harmful impacts of advertising unhealthy foods to children. Ethics govern oneself about what should be the right and wrong ways to conduct and it has considerable significance in the conduct of business. Kantianism and utilitarianism are ethical frameworks, which determine whether an act is right or wrong in different ways.

Running head: ETHICAL THOUGHT AND ACTION
Ethical Thought and Action
Name of the Student:
Name of the University:
Author Note:

1Ethical Thought and Action
Introduction:
Ethics govern oneself about what should be the right and wrong ways to conduct (Doan
& Stallemo, 2016) and it has considerable significance in the conduct of business. Kantianism
and utilitarianism are ethical frameworks, which determine whether an act is right or wrong in
different ways. In Kantianism, humans are supposed to behave rationally and they must not be
used solely for the happiness of another (Palmer & Hedberg, 2013). Whereas, Utilitarians
believe that humans must do actions that create the greatest amount of happiness (MacKinnon &
Fiala, 2014). This essay argues that the costs of consuming unhealthy food exceeds any of the
potential benefits (Trémolière & Bonnefon, 2014). This essay focuses on aspect of unethical
behaviour in food marketing, in particular the harmful impacts of advertising unhealthy foods to
children. It will point how advertising of unhealthy food to children may results in addiction to
these type of food and its harmful effects on children’s health. Besides, the essay shows the
positive perspective of advertisement of healthy food. Finally, the essay concludes that the
advertisement of unhealthy food to children should be banned as they advocate the unhealthy
way of life. Hence, the essay supports the fact it is morally not right for marketers to advertise
unhealthy food to children.
Analysis and Discussion:-
Advertising is a major marketing tool through which company practices different
strategies to aim specific groups such as children to promote their products or services (De
Mooij, 2013), particularly in encouraging the consumption of unhealthy food. Unhealthy food
can be fast food or junk food. Fast food which have less nutritional value compared to other
foods and dishes, yet they highly contain salt, sugar, saturated fat (Jaworowska, Blackham,
Davies & Stevenson, 2013). Regular intake of fast food increases the risk of major health issues

2Ethical Thought and Action
and complications such as colorectal cancer, high cholesterol and depression. Advertising is
human activity directed at satisfying needs and want. From the utilitarian perspective, advertising
can be considered as ethical if the advertiser have clear conscience and their act have good
consequence, otherwise not. On the other hand, as we have already mentioned, a utilitarian
perspective does not necessarily mean that marketing is ethical. If an advertiser says that eating
food will add calorie to one’s body and is essential for staying healthy, then his act can be taken
as ethical. On the contrary, if the advertiser intends to promote the habit of eating in order to
increase his sales figure and earn more profit, then that act is considered unethical. From
Kantianism perspective, there is nothing ethical about doing something if it makes one feel good
or gain something. This concept makes ethics out of scope for advertisers.
Similarly, junk food is a food, which have artificial food colourings, preservatives, and
low in nutrients. Regular eating of junk foods may cause diseases such as heart problems, bone
problems, increase in blood pressure, cancer, diabetes, mental disorders many other health
disorders (Moss, 2013). Thus, sales and promotion of junk food advertisements towards the
younger generation affects their health noticeably in spite of the huge profits earned through
selling of junk foods to them. From the Utilitarianism aspect, this practice is unethical as the
costs of these decisions to raise consumption of unhealthy food options exceed any potential
benefits. From the Kantianism aspect, the idea of somebody retaining the other for potential
gains is extremely inhuman and unpardonable.
Correspondingly, the unhealthy food health habits of children encourage developing
lifelong attitudes on undisciplined food habit and lifestyle choices, which can lead to serious
health problems and early death. However, by keeping the profit interests in mind company
advertises its product and present the product in its best light in order to encourage purchase.

3Ethical Thought and Action
(Mehta et al., 2014). This encourage the children to buy and consume fast food or junk food on a
regular basis. Besides having negative effects on the children’s academics, the unhealthy food
consumption also increases risk of health diseases, harming the future generations. Hence,
avoiding of fast food or junk food consumption improves one’s individual health as well as
benefits society by reducing the national healthcare costs. Utilitarian theory would direct us to
reduce unhealthy food consumption to minimize the external costs which society is forced to
bear. From Kantian approach, promotion of unhealthy food results in violation of children’s right
to live with dignity.
Another reason for addiction of unhealthy food is as follows. In earlier days, parents had
time to prepare packed lunch for their children when going to school. However, in present days,
most parents are unable of doing such things due to hectic schedules. Thus, parents just tend to
give money to their children to purchase what they need. Sometimes, parents also provide snack
for their children. Both school and parent should make the children aware about the ill effects of
unhealthy food and make them realise that it is unethical to advertise unhealthy food to them.
From the Kantianism approach, when children take something to eat then, then he/she acts by
obeying his/her hungriness which is biological condition and thus he/she is not acting out of
freedom. Obeying biological condition in accordance with the will of the outside world is
considered as a heteronomous act. Advertising on fast food or junk food influence the child as
well as create a desire to select a product or appealing to act immediately. In this way, it forces
the child to act heteronomously which is not at all ethical.
In order to ensure that all children must grow and live healthily and lead a healthy life,
then companies here must take the role of reducing marketing of unhealthy foods on one hand,
and expand and increase marketing of healthy and nutritious food products and items on the

4Ethical Thought and Action
other hand (Swinburn et al., 2015). Parents should advise and take care regarding the eating
habits of their children and discourage unhealthy eating by highlighting the ill effects of such
food habits. It is a huge responsibility and parents should not be blamed only for not taking care
of their children’ food habit. There should be some action and programme from the government
regarding banning of these food advertisements or at least preventing them during the children’
viewing hours (Witkowski, 2007).
Advertisers do not take the responsibility of judging the possible effects or outcomes of
their advertisements on the health and psychology of children exposed to them. Thus, main focus
of advertising unhealthy food is to maximize the company profit irrespective of what ill effects
occur to children. Hence, utilitarian theory would instruct to protest against profit making
practices of fast food companies and discourage fast food consumption. Certainly, this fact
supports that it is not ethical to advertise unhealthy food to children.
It would be unfair to ban advertising of unhealthy foods to children since the concept of
unhealthy foods have not been clearly defined anywhere. Consequently, it is critical to establish
the exact guidelines for ‘acceptable’ foods to be advertised would appear (Kelly, Miller & King,
2012). Hence, a better choice would be to ban all types of food advertisement altogether.
However, such action would make it impossible to use television (TV) and other media to
promote healthy food choices. Moreover, it is the responsibility of the parent to decide what their
children should eat or watch, not the food advertisement companies. If companies legitimately
purchase advertising time during a TV program as long as the company comply with the rules
and regulation, it is their discretion about what they want to advertise (Ni & Van Wart, 2015).
The company who makes fast foods or junk foods is not responsible of taking care and warning
children that too much of having such food will destroy their good health. It is duty of the

5Ethical Thought and Action
parents to inform their children and make them aware of the harmful effect and negative impacts
that fast foods or fjunk foods could bring (Boyland, Nolan, Kelly, Tudur-Smith, Jones, Halford
& Robinson, (2016). Instead of blaming unhealthy food habits on only TV commercials or
advertisements, parent should teach their children what is healthy life style and healthy food
habit, what is not, and ultimately children must make their own choices regarding this (King,
Hebden, Grunseit, Kelly & Chapman, 2013). One of Kantianism main objections to
Utilitarianism is that instead, people are utilised as an end in themselves; it could utilise a people
as a way to an end. As the children cannot fully understand the intent behind the advertising, in
view of Kantianism all advertisement can be classified as deception. Kantianism dismiss any
type of lies or deception, irrespective of the outcome.
Conclusion:
Thus, it can be concluded that although advertising helps people to make their decision of
purchasing a product or service, yet exposing them to children has got some serious and
unavoidable consequences, notably health effects and psychological effects due to their
incapability to filter and process the information they receive. However, exposure of
advertisements to children is unavoidable. Yet, the negative impact of the advertisement can be
minimised. For instance, besides guiding children on how to properly deal with the messages
they receive from advertising, parents should nurture environment for their children that should
enrich self-esteem of children and promote educational and healthy hobbies among them.
Utilitarianism leads to conclude that abstaining from unhealthy food consumption practice is the
most ethical decision from a health standpoint as well as from a societal standpoint. From
Kantian perspective, children must be treated as an end in themselves and not as objects for
capitalising sales and profits. Thus, advertising to children is any way not ethical. Conclusively,

6Ethical Thought and Action
banning of advertisements of unhealthy foods is the best solution as it provide a better future for
children. Hence, it is morally not right for marketers to advertise unhealthy food to children.
References:-
Boyland, E. J., Nolan, S., Kelly, B., Tudur-Smith, C., Jones, A., Halford, J. C., & Robinson, E.
(2016). Advertising as a cue to consume: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the
effects of acute exposure to unhealthy food and nonalcoholic beverage advertising on
intake in children and adults, 2. The American journal of clinical nutrition, 103(2), 519-
533.
De Mooij, M. (2013). Global marketing and advertising: Understanding cultural paradoxes.
Sage Publications.
Doan, H. T. D., & Stallemo, I. (2016). Code of ethics and moral awareness; A study about the
relationship between code of ethics and moral awareness and the moderating impact of
locus of control (Master's thesis, BI Norwegian Business School).
Jaworowska, A., Blackham, T., Davies, I. G., & Stevenson, L. (2013). Nutritional challenges and
health implications of takeaway and fast food. Nutrition reviews, 71(5), 310-318.
Kelly, B., Miller, R., & King, L. (2012). The case for and against the regulation of food
marketing directed towards children. Sydney University Press.
King, L., Hebden, L., Grunseit, A., Kelly, B., & Chapman, K. (2013). Building the case for
independent monitoring of food advertising on Australian television. Public Health
Nutrition, 16(12), 2249-2254.
MacKinnon, B., & Fiala, A. (2014). Ethics: Theory and contemporary issues. Nelson Education.

7Ethical Thought and Action
Mehta, K. P., Coveney, J., Ward, P., & Handsley, E. (2014). Parents’ and children’s perceptions
of the ethics of marketing energy-dense nutrient-poor foods on the internet: implications
for policy to restrict children’s exposure. Public Health Ethics, 7(1), 21-34.
Moss, M. (2013). The extraordinary science of addictive junk food. Expanding addiction:
Critical essays, 127-140.
Ni, A., & Van Wart, M. (2015). Corporate Social Responsibility: Doing Well and Doing Good.
In Building Business-Government Relations (pp. 175-196). Routledge.
Palmer, D., & Hedberg, T. (2013). The ethics of marketing to vulnerable populations. Journal of
business ethics, 116(2), 403-413.
Swinburn, B., Kraak, V., Rutter, H., Vandevijvere, S., Lobstein, T., Sacks, G., ... & Magnusson,
R. (2015). Strengthening of accountability systems to create healthy food environments
and reduce global obesity. The Lancet, 385(9986), 2534-2545.
Trémolière, B., & Bonnefon, J. F. (2014). Efficient kill–save ratios ease up the cognitive
demands on counterintuitive moral utilitarianism. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 40(7), 923-930.
Witkowski, T. H. (2007). Food marketing and obesity in developing countries: analysis, ethics,
and public policy. Journal of Macromarketing, 27(2), 126-137.