The case in article “Can ad copy be false but not misleading? If so, is that ok?” shows that a statement can be both false and innocuous. The company could likely be held accountable for misleading its customers by saying that the box contains 2X times more. The advertisement means that it contains two times additional volume, which most customers would expect to be addressed as 3X times (The Editors, 2018). The ad has not violated any moral rights but based on utilitarian and Kantian ethical theories, the advertisement is unethical and could negatively affect the company.
Maple has not violated any moral rights since customers who feel the ad was misleading cannot justify that the company intended to harm them. Similarly, moral rights are copyrights, and rights violated willingly by the accused, which is not the case with the McCormick Maple extract ad. The Utilitarian approach seeks to ensure the greater good for the majority of stakeholders in society (Bauer, 2020). The ad seems to be misleading, and most people would be misled. Therefore, the best Utilitarian approach would be to reword the ad in a manner understandable by the majority of people.
Kantian ethical approach states that reason should inform decisions made by people and organizations. It also asserts that people should treat others the way they want to be treated (Baron, 2018). In the case study, the ad is not understandable, and the company would also not enjoy advertisements understandably given to them. Under this approach, the company should edit the ad in an acceptable manner.
In conclusion, the case study reveals that a company’s action can still be morally right while at the same time being unethical. Since the McCormick Maple extract ad was not against any copyrights and rights, it was morally okay. However, based on the utilitarian approach, the ad was not good for the majority of the consumers. Moreover, using the Kantian approach, the company would not like its stakeholders to be vague in its statements making it unethical.
References
Baron, M. W. (2018). Kantian ethics is almost without apology. Cornell University Press.
Bauer, W. A. (2020). Virtuous vs. utilitarian artificial moral agents. AI & Society, 35(1), 263-271. Web.
The Editors (2018). Can ad copy be false but not misleading? If so, is that ok?Business Ethics Highlights. Web.