The Ethics of Alcohol Advertising: A Non-consequentialist Perspective

This essay provides a comprehensive analysis of the ethics of alcohol advertising, employing a non-consequentialist framework. It begins by exploring the application of virtues such as tact, empathy, and integrity to the ethical question of banning alcohol advertisements in public spaces. The essay then delves into the morality of alcohol advertising, comparing it to the chosen virtues and examining the ethical underpinnings of the issue. A significant portion of the essay is dedicated to applying Kant's categorical imperative, assessing the ethicality of alcohol advertising through the lens of universal rules and moral duties. Finally, the essay concludes by comparing Kantian and utilitarian perspectives, highlighting the differences in their approaches to determining the morality of actions. The work references several academic sources to support its arguments.

Applied Ethics and Sustainability 1
APPLIED ETHICS AND SUSTAINABILITY
Name
Instructor
Institution
Course
Date

Applied Ethics and Sustainability 2
Applied Ethics and Sustainability
Non-consequentialism is a school of thought that is used to judge the morality of actions.
Non-consequentialism judges the reasons behind actions rather their outcomes (Slote, 2010). For
instance, if an action is done with good intentions, then the act will be regarded as moral.
Likewise, if an action is based on evil intentions, then they are immoral. This kind of ethics,
therefore, depends on an individual’s moral obligation to act depending on his or her moral
beliefs (Van Hooft 2014). Owing to this view, I believe that banning the advertisements of
alcohol in public is a good thing to do, and this is due to the moral responsibility which requires
me to act so, and it does not matter what will happen to the alcohol companies.
a) Virtues relevant to the analysis to the specific ethical question
There are three strands of virtues, namely:-
Tact – Conway and Gawronski (2013) observe that it is morally justified, to be honest, but
tactful. Given the danger that alcohol consumption has on the general public especially the
young people, it is recommended that the adverting firms take into consideration the impact that
their promotion and marketing efforts have the other end of their actions. Arguably, they should
conduct the strategies in light of the golden rule which people to do to others what they would
love being recipients to without complaints.
Empathy – while public advertising and promotion of harmful products increase the
demand of the products through the creation of psychological tact, it is worthy for once to step
into the shoes of the youth who are lured into alcohol addiction and empathize with them (Van
Hooft 2014).
Integrity – Since it is unethical for advertising firm to publicly promote harmful products
such as alcohol to increase sales at the expense of the young people, these firms should act with

Applied Ethics and Sustainability 3
integrity to ensure that they remain focused on creating value to the society (Russell 2013).
b). The morality of an act central to the ethical question in comparison to the chosen
virtues
In references to the chosen virtues, the morality of public advertisement of alcohol
products has two ethical underpinnings. Arnold, Audi and Zwolinski (2010) argue that while
advertising and promotion of alcohol and associated beverages increases sales through the
creation of demand in the market, actors must be morally responsible for their actions. They
must take into consideration the impact that their actions have on the target consumers. Thus,
given the danger that alcohol consumption has on young alcohol consumers, marketers must
always ensure that they promote their products while still ensuring that the young people are
protected through creating of safe measures against the product consumption (Dion, 2012). An
adherence to the moral golden rule that ensures all parties are not completely affected by the
action of social influencers.
Besides, continuous exposure of the public to alcohol products results in increasing
negative impact on the lifestyle of young people (Slote, 2010). As a result, many young people
are lured into consuming these products and beverages leading to the increasing number of
addicts. Consequently, these affected young people are unable to adequately conduct themselves
even on the road and thereby are more susceptible to accidents. Thus, to this end, public
promotion and advertisement of alcohol and its products fail to promote happiness which is the
primary goal of every human person.
However, from an agent-based theoretical approach, public promotion and advertisement
of alcohol and beverages are often aimed at marketing the products to consumers who through
such media are informed of the new products in the market. To this group of persons, such

Applied Ethics and Sustainability 4
promotional efforts play a fundamental role in determining what they should experience in their
next drinking spree. Besides, as Conway and Gawronski (2013) observe companies that produce
these products rely on the marketing efforts to increase their sale. Thus, a ban or closure on a
public advertisement will hurt these organizations, and the move will have dare consequences on
labor loss and low economic impact. As such, the intention of advertising firms is not always to
make young people start consuming alcohol to a dangerous level but create a platform for public
awareness and promotion.
c). Kant’s categorical imperative
i) The specific rule which authorizes the act central to your ethical question
Given the negative influence of alcohol on the young people, it is, therefore, unethical for
advertising firms to continue exposing them to such content publicly.
ii) The general rule which authorizes the act central to your ethical question
It is unethical to publicly advertise and promote harmful products such as alcohol primarily with
the aim of utilizing psychological tactic to increase the demand for the specific product.
iii) Is the general rule inherently self-contradictory? Why or why not?
Yes. It categorizes the act of advertisement and promotion of the product which has been
branded to be harmful publicly, as unethical. However, on the same tangent, the rule takes into
account on the value inherent in the process for promoting and marketing which to increase
demand and subsequent sales.
iv). Does the general rule violate Kant’s practical imperative or any of Kant’s other absolute
moral standards?

Applied Ethics and Sustainability 5
Yes. Despite the self-contradiction that is evident in the general rule, it still violates Kant’s
practical imperative, according to which agents of change should make regulations that could be
become general laws.
v) Is the general rule contrary to its fundamental purpose?
Yes, the general fundamental purpose is to prohibit the conduct of adverting firms of marketing
and promoting harmful products public and therefore, it has unethical and not acceptable even in
itself it has positive outcome such as increase sale.
vi) Is the act ethical according to Kant’s ethical system?
The Kantian categorical imperative provides a school of thought in which people can
evaluate their moral actions as well as make moral arguments in their daily life. Arguably, it
should not be conceived as a moral command or anything like that which restricts the
performance of specific actions (Kant 2017). Instead, the imperative should be viewed as formal
procedure through which people can assess any action based on its logical deductions. Thus, any
action is said to be moral if it passes the test of universality, rationality, and impartiality (Gray
and Schein 2012). According to Kant, actions are morally praiseworthy when they are done out
of a practical sense of duty than that the fear of consequence that is expected out of the action
especially the consequences to self (Kant 2017). To him, the only good thing about any
particular act is the will behind that act. Van Zyl (2011) asserts that Kant’s categorical
imperative confirms the deontological (the will to duty) aspect of human nature.
In view of the Kantian ethical system, the morality of public advertisement and promotion
of alcohol and beverage is dependent on the will behind the action. Morally right actions are
often products or goodwill or intentions. The end products may be devastating, but the results of
an action should not be used to render the whole action as wrong. Therefore, in the event that the

Applied Ethics and Sustainability 6
promotion of alcohol products are intended to invite or lure young people into alcohol, then the
actions of such advertising firms is morally wrong and unjustifiable (Kant 2017). On the other
hand, if the intention of such adverts and promotional content are aimed at purely marketing and
increasing sales for the products manufacturers, then the act is morally justified. Thus, Kant
observes that any actor must always act in a manner that they are willing to allow the outcome of
their actions to become a universal law. It means, therefore, an agent of a cause is bound by the
global rules to act responsibly to every recipient of the actions.
d). Utilitarian and Kantian analyses
While the utilitarian school of thought proposes a mass agreement and consequential
impact to determine the morality of an action, Kantian perspective views the very intention that
triggered the action (Dion 2012). To a more significant extent, Kant’s argument agrees with the
Michael Slote’s position in regards to agent-based action in which common-sense intuition that
propels either a good action or a bad one is used to assess the morality of the action rather than
its outcome. To Slote, a moral assessment of activity is dependent on the ethical judgment about
the inner life of the causing agent. To this end, advertisement and promotions in themselves are
not evil, but the intention behind their promotional effort determines the moral inclination that
can be said about the act.

Applied Ethics and Sustainability 7
References
Arnold, D.G., Audi, R. and Zwolinski, M., 2010. Recent work in ethical theory and its
implications for business ethics. Business Ethics Quarterly, 20(4), pp.559-581.
Conway, P. and Gawronski, B., 2013. Deontological and utilitarian inclinations in moral decision
making: a process dissociation approach. Journal of personality and social psychology,
104(2), p.216.
Dion, M., 2012. Are ethical theories relevant for ethical leadership? Leadership & Organization
Development Journal, 33(1), pp.4-24.
Gray, K. and Schein, C., 2012. Two minds vs. two philosophies: Mind perception defines
morality and dissolves the debate between deontology and utilitarianism. Review of
Philosophy and Psychology, 3(3), pp.405-423.
Kant, I., 2017. Kant: The metaphysics of morals. Cambridge University Press.
Mill, J.S., 2016. Utilitarianism. In Seven Masterpieces of Philosophy (pp. 337-383). Routledge.
Russell, D.C. ed., 2013. The Cambridge companion to virtue ethics. Cambridge University Press.
Slote, M., 2010. Virtue ethics. In The Routledge companion to ethics (pp. 504-515). Routledge.
Van Hooft, S., 2014. Understanding virtue ethics. Routledge.
Van Zyl, L., 2011. Right Action and the Non‐Virtuous Agent. Journal of Applied Philosophy,
28(1), pp.80-92.