This theory was put forward by T.Garrett in 1966. According to this theory, to judge whether an action or decision is moral, we should comprehensively examine it from three aspects: purpose, means and consequences.
Purpose refers to the motivation and intention behind the behavior. Garrett believes that the intention behind the behavior is a part of morality, and whether the intention is pure or not should be regarded as an important factor to judge whether the behavior is moral or not. For example, marketing managers engage in market research, the purpose of which is not to obtain true and accurate market information, but only to provide evidence for a certain marketing plan that has been decided, or just to block the opponent's mouth. Such market research activities have serious moral problems in themselves.
3. Judging whether a marketing behavior is moral is often not as easy as people think. Of course, some behaviors that violate marketing ethics, such as false advertising, collusive pricing, selling fake wine and counterfeit drugs, are generally hated by the society, and their immorality is obvious at a glance. However, it is not easy to know whether some marketing behaviors, such as children's advertisements, obtaining competitors' marketing information as customers, and offering price concessions to big buyers, are ethical, and people's judgments are often inconsistent.
So, is there a universal moral standard to evaluate the "good", "evil" or moral rationality of behavior? Ethicists put forward two theories: utilitarianism and deontology. Utilitarianism mainly judges the moral rationality of an action by its consequences. If an action can bring happiness to most people, it is moral, otherwise it is problematic or immoral. On the other hand, deontology summarizes some moral responsibilities or obligations that people should abide by from intuition and experience, and judges whether the behavior is reasonable based on the performance of these obligations.
In marketing practice, enterprises sometimes make moral judgments on their actions according to utilitarianism and sometimes according to deontology. This paper attempts to introduce several western moral theories of "moral deviation" and make a brief evaluation of their application in the field of marketing. Although these theories have their own limitations, they are not based on pure utilitarianism, but more on strengthening corporate social responsibility, so they have practical reference and enlightenment significance for determining the moral boundary of marketing activities.
I. Preliminary framework of responsibilities
This theory was put forward by an Englishman, W.D. Ross. In the book Rights and Goodness published by 1930, Ross systematically put forward the concept of "highlighting obligations" or "highlighting responsibilities". In his view, the so-called outstanding obligation is the behavior that people think is appropriate under certain time and environment. On most occasions, rational people often know what they should do without deliberation and regard it as a moral obligation.
Ross put forward six basic and obvious obligations: ① Honesty, including keeping promises, fulfilling contracts, telling the truth and remedying mistakes. Specific to the field of marketing, enterprises are required to avoid cheating and misleading propaganda, so that the quality of products or services can meet the expected requirements of consumers. (2) Gratitude means repaying kindness with kindness, such as repaying parents' kindness, caring for friends, and serving others with kindness. In marketing activities, enterprises are required to give special care to customers and suppliers who have long-term friendly and cooperative relations with them, and give appropriate support and help to the latter when they encounter difficulties. (3) Justice, that is, rewards and punishments are clear, and under the same conditions, there is no favoritism. For example, in the bidding process, we should decide who to award the contract according to the procedures and bidding conditions, not according to personal likes and dislikes or whether the other party will give kickbacks. 4 to do good, that is, to be charitable and to help others. For example, be enthusiastic about social welfare undertakings and refuse to associate with companies that harm public interests. (5) self-improvement, so as to play their potential and virtue, realize their own value. For example, enterprises should try their best to produce products suitable for social needs and earn as much equity income as possible for shareholders. 6 don't do evil, that is, don't harm people, for example, ensure the safety and reliability of products in marketing activities, don't bully the market, don't buy and sell.
The above six outstanding obligations may conflict in many cases, and then there is the question of the order of application, that is, which outstanding obligations should be fulfilled first. For example, on the way to an appointment, someone was injured in a car accident and needed to be taken to the hospital for emergency treatment. At this time, you must choose between keeping your promise and helping the unfortunate. Although it is important to keep promises and do good deeds, which is more correct at this time? Ross believes that in the consciousness of ordinary people, intuition tells us that in this case, the greater responsibility should be to save people. "In the final analysis, it is the concept of' correctness' that regulates the conflicts of various moral principles, and it is the correct intuition for specific behaviors in certain situations."
Ross's theory of "obvious obligation" is obviously flawed, especially when there is a conflict between moral obligations, it is inevitable to resort to intuition and common sense subjectively to solve it. But this theory has at least two meanings in the construction of marketing ethics: first, it encourages marketers to examine and decide what moral responsibilities they should bear in marketing activities. If there are no more important and priority responsibilities, then marketers must faithfully perform these responsibilities that can be realized by intuition; Second, Ross's theory emphasizes the ubiquitous obligation in marketing activities, while relatively downplaying the prediction of behavior results. In this way, we can avoid the situation that we often only ask the results and ignore the obligations and responsibilities in the latter case, thus helping to reduce those situations in which a marketing behavior seems desirable from the perspective of pure utility, but it is actually immoral.
I'm not sure about this, hehe. sorry ...