1. Moral Rule:It is (always) wrong to tell a lie. No, b/c: 1) Nazi cases. 2) National security cases. 3) some white lies. 4) etc.

2. Moral Rule:It is (always) wrong to tell self-interested lies.

3. Moral Rule: It is wrong to tell a lie for financial gain. Three interesting counter-examples (from students) 1) Ex-con lies about being a con to get a job and feed his family. 2) Robber case. (Robber on the street demands “all your money” – you give him $5 and lie and tell him that’s all you have.) My response: Grotius’ response: here the robber has no right to the truth (same as in Nazi cases, only involving money). 3) Waiter/customer case. (Customer asks waiter, “do you like my haircut?” – concerned about his tip, waiter says “yes”). My response: Plausibly, customer doesn’t want truth, wants compliment, like some death bed scenarios.

4. Revised Rule: It is wrong to tell a lie for financial gain, unless 1) “victim” has no right to truth, or 2) there’s good reason to think she doesn’t want the truth.

5. Advertising Ethics

6. Three Ethical Objections Manipulativeness E.g., Galbraith. “Purveys false values” Deceptiveness

7. “Ordinary” notion: deceptiveness = intentional misleading. Problems (as applied to ads): a) who and how many need be misled? b) proving intent?

8. Legal (FTC) notion: Re: b) deceptive ads are those w/ a “tendency to mislead”. Re: a) Whom? Even 1 person? - “Ignorant Person Standard” http://www.notarealthing.com/2010/06/olde-frothingslosh/ Clairol example Now: “Modified Ignorant Person” -in practice, often determined by focus groups.

9. Big point : 2 big differences between “deceptive advertising” and ads that are simply false.

10. Implied Claims Profile bread: fewer calories per slice, good for weight loss. Kraft singles. Vs. mere puffery Stricter FTC scrutiny when claims: involve health “sound” scientific