Ethical analysis of Classic Tan's deceptive health claims

Public Communication Ethics

Response a: Profit vs. Public Health (Ch. 7, Case 30, Promoting "Smart Tanning"?)

Potter's Model

Potter's model concerns the individual's relationship within the social and professional context. In terms of the Classic Tan case, number 1, 2 and 5 appear particularly applicable. Those in charge of advertising for Classic Tan are not following their "Duty to themselves" in terms of the Potter model. There is no apparent adherence to the individual conscience or integrity. Instead, blatant lies are promoted in order to ensure a profit for Classic Tan.

In addition, the second facet of Potter's model, "Duty to clients/supporters" is not applied either. Classic Tan is apparently has no concern for its clients or their long-term health. Hence, a number of wild statements are offered as fact, with little effort to investigate the true long-term effects of the company's service.

Finally, the company is also not fulfilling its duty to society. Instead of social responsibility, the company is perpetuating lies not only via public statements, but also via a prominent Web site that promote those lies. There is no attempt to liaise with recognized scientists such as the ADAA.

2. Ethical Theory

I believe the ethical theory that best addresses this issue is Immanuel Kant's categorical imperative. The imperative demands that a law or action is universally applicable. It is clear that Classic Tan is promoting lies for the purpose of maintaining its profit level. This is clearly wrong in universal terms. A business that promotes lies regarding the health hazards of its product is unethical and should not be allowed to conduct business. The ethics of being truthful regarding hazardous products is a universally applicable law.

In terms of social good, the company is also not concerned with the harm it causes to clients. Instead, it modifies statistics to encourage individuals in the use of a potentially harmful product. While Kant's categorical imperative may therefore appear somewhat inflexible on the one hand, its relevance to this case is undeniable. Some principles are universally applicable, regardless of extenuating circumstances. Lying to clients and society as a whole is not morally defensible, and should therefore be most strongly discouraged and eliminated, where possible.

1. Potter's Model

This case relates to the government and its relationship with a public it is to protect. The public has the right to be protected and the right to knowledge, but also the right to personal privacy. Personal privacy is one of the primary democratic rights. In terms of the Patriot Act, Potter's model can be applied in terms of the fifth element.

The fifth element of the model applies to the "Duty to society." The government is perhaps the organization with the greatest responsibility to the public. It is to maximize public protection and minimize harm. The Patriot Act has however not achieved this. Instead, clear violations of privacy rights have occurred, where law-abiding citizens and immigrants have been treated unfairly based on their ethnic heritage rather than any evidence of terrorist activity.

The government's argument is that it is concerned with public protection. However, one must also consider the balance between public safety and the rights ensured by a democratic government. Innocent people have been harmed under the Patriot Act, while terrorists have continued their activities unabated. This means that the Act has not been very effective in terms of its stated purpose. Instead, the truth appears to be that the Act has increased the government's power to the detriment of the public good.

2. Ethical Theory

The ethical theories that best address this is a combination of Confucius' Golden Mean and John Stuart Mill's utilitarianism. The Golden Mean principle holds that two extremes that are both hazardous can be compromized by obtaining a golden mean between them. When applied to the Patriot Act, for example, this is an extreme response to a projected threat, rather than an existing one. Understandably, the government's aim is to prevent any future terrorist activity. In order to accomplish this, however, officials have engaged in many and unnecessary actions, and harmed the public at the same time. Furthermore, the Act has been only minimally effective in its aim to prevent terrorism.

Hence, even though the extreme response was chosen, public harm was maximized while the good was minimized. In a Golden Mean response, the government could have deployed targeted investigations at locations where terrorism is suspected. It could also have implemented a public monitoring scheme, where rewards are offered for reports of possible terrorist activity. Thorough investigations should be launched before detaining anybody.

In terms of utilitarianism, the greatest good for the most people are not being served. Indeed, most people involved are harmed by the Patriot Act, while no terrorist arrests have been made as a result of it. Utilitarianism in this case would require that the government makes an assessment of actions that would bring about the greatest benefit to the greatest number of people. It appears however that the country's leaders have served their own drive to more power over individuals rather than truly serving the public good.

3. Defending my Position:

I would use the basic principles of the Constitution to defend my position. No threat is sufficient to warrant the government to violate the constitutional rights of the public. I would then use my position in journalistic circles to stimulate debate around the issues. Because of the increasing power of the government, the press appears to support a singular position, promoting the Patriot Act as a public right instead of privacy, due process, and the numerous other rights violated by the Act.

Furthermore, information regarding detainees and rights violations due to ethnic heritage and groundless suspicion of terrorism has been minimal or indeed entirely hidden from the public. My aim would not be to attempt to extract such information. Instead, I will publicly suggest that the government has been promoting an Act that is in fact a blatant violation of human rights.

Currently, there appears to be a lack of public debate regarding the issue. I would therefore use both online and print publications to promote public awareness of the choices exercised by the government. The public also has choices regarding its response to government actions and how the government conducts its affairs. The government is the servant of the people, and as such should focus upon the promotion of this interest, rather than its violation.

Response C: Media Interests vs. Community Interests (Gatekeepers II: Opening the Door)

1. Potter's Model

The second, third and fifth elements of Potter's model appear to be applicable to this case. News media have a duty to its advertisement supporters who pay the bills. Once an agreement is made and money received to place information from a paying client, a news publication has an obligation to print the information. This is a contractual obligation, as money has been received for a certain service.

This is closely related to the third obligation in the model, which is "duty to the organization." The press has an obligation to provide the public with a wide variety of viewpoints in order to ensure public debate and accurate information. If a certain piece of information is withheld from the public as a result of its controversial content, this constitutes unfair censorship. The general principle of the press is to promote knowledge rather than censorship. Hence, information that could cause disagreement should not be withheld on those grounds alone.

On the other hand, the press in general also has a duty to society in terms of providing accurate information. The advertisement is in direct opposition to generally accepted facts regarding slavery. Hence publishing it on the strength merely of publishing whatever opinion is paid for could be considered unethical in terms of balanced and fair information provision. Particularly, the audience of the publication in question should also be considered. If the audience is for example generally black, one cannot endorse the publication of a piece that could be considered as racist or in some other way socially harmful.

2. Ethical Theory

John Rawl's Veil of Ignorance theory appears to address the matter adequately. This theory requires a social contract among parties that are assumed to be equal. Hence, in the situation at hand, it is advisable to consider the statements made in the publication on the strength of their value when they are divorced from social or racial issues.

The statements themselves must then be considered for their value in terms of publication and society. Questions regarding the veracity of the statements and probable public reaction should be considered without considering the actual situation. A "veil" should be drawn over the actual situation, which will then reveal the best course of action.

In this case, it appears the statements are made simply to start not so much debate as possibly violent public disagreements. Furthermore, they are not accepted historical truths, but appear to be the opinion of a certain portion of society that could be deemed to be prejudiced against other major sectors of society.

On the strength of this, it can be surmised that the statements could be harmful to a major portion of the public, and should therefore not be published. When the veil is lifted, it is also clear that a certain demographic audience for the publication of the statements should be considered. Although the press should therefore promote free speech, this should be done with a sense of responsibility.

3. Defending my Position

In communicating my position, I would suggest to my publication firm that the publication of the proposed advertisement is not in the best interest of the public. The reason for this is that it does not reveal a specific, unknown truth. It is an opinion that could prove inflammatory, particularly if certain types of demographic readers are concerned. Furthermore, it is merely an opinion, but appears to be published as fact.

In the interest of free speech, however, one might suggest that it be published in a public opinion column, where it is clearly meant as opinion to spark possible public debate. As an advertisement, however, it appears to be somewhat inappropriate for the platform provided. Furthermore, a paper that publishes it on the premise of a paid advertisement appears to be not entirely ethical; accepting money for an opinion posing as fact.

In conveying my opinion, I would then first approach the editor-in-chief of the paper concerned. I would suggest that, if the opinion is to be published, it should be done so under a different premise than a paid advertisement. It should be appropriate both to the audience and the paper of its publication.