Personal responsibility is an interesting concept. My
roommates and I had a lengthy conversation about the importance of being the
master of your own life and our class on Justice caused me to reflect on some
of the things we discussed. One of my roommates was convinced that a type of
utopian society would effectively operate if everyone exercised personal responsibility
and the government had much less control over its people. In this way, everyone
would simply be responsible for looking after him or herself and fewer
resources would be expended ensuring the safety of everyone. A main concept was
that of advertising. It was claimed that in this society, a person had the
right to produce and market any good they wanted without being held responsible
for the effects of the product. It was up to the consumer of the product to
exercise the appropriate cautions when deciding whether or not to purchase the
good. An explicit case would be a drug advertised to cure symptoms of an
illness but was not required to list possible side effects, or even prove that the drug
was effective.
This concept of strict individuality seemed quite
disconcerting to me, especially with the presence of the FDA and other safety administrations
in the US that act as safeguards to these types of actions. My question on this
matter is simple: is it the responsibility of the consumer or the producer to
ensure the safety in products? On what grounds can the producers claim no responsibility
for any harmful consequences? These questions can also be related to the recent
government mandated cigarette ads that were the result of a 2006 court case.
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2017/11/27/566014966/in-ads-tobacco-companies-admit-they-made-cigarettes-more-addictive
In such an example, I think it is the responsibility of the producer to be open about all research and information they have on such a product, holding nothing back. Choosing to not present available information is manipulation.
ReplyDeleteOn the consumer end, its up to each individual to educate themselves about the potential risks and rewards that come from using any particular anything. If they can trust that the producer has furnished all available information, then they can make an educated decision. If someone is not willing to do this research, well thats Darwinism in action.
On a personal level, I consider it to be an assault against my intelligence and autonomy over my body that the government, federal, state, FDA, whoever, thinks that they have a right to make it illegal for me to do anything to myself that I should want, so long as that does not directly affect those around me. Where did I sign on the dotted line, "I pay you taxes, so therefore I require you to protect me from myself."
But, thats a part of capitalism I suppose. When the bottom line is business, not societal benefit, health, and happiness, humans are willing to go to extraordinary lengths to meet the bottom line, because money is more important than people right? Good, I thought so.
So the government steps in, to protect its citizens from the big bad boogie business, who will stop at nothing to extort from them. But thats the rules of the land right, the survival of the fittest, and in the case of capitalism, fitness is measured by monetary accumulation, not truthfulness or benefit to others, those are secondhand to money, if not third or fifth hand. Actually, what hand? All I see are greenbacks baby. Gimme more gimme more...
This is an interesting topic, and one which, at least for myself, has a clear answer. I believe that transparency in information concerning products lies to producers. However, this does not mean they can be held responsible for consumers using their products incorrectly or in an unsafe manner which is obvious based on supplied information.
ReplyDeleteI think it gets even more interesting if we look at the definition of ‘product.’ Can we consider information a product? Very rarely does harmful information, like Nazism or racism, come with a warning label. Specifically, I think of the filter bubble which is increasingly isolating us in the online world. Take for example two different women: one and executive at an oil company and another an environmental activist. If they entered into a search engine “BP Oil Spill,” the information presented to them would be vastly different based on their past online preferences. Our Internet experience is becoming increasingly more biased, and most people are not even aware.
I think providers of information have a responsibility to inform consumers how their online environment is shaped. The ramifications should be made obvious so that users can make informed decisions understanding how they are being influenced. In this case, I would place greater responsibility on producers to make their intentions known.
I think that the argument that it should be on the consumer somewhat come from a place of privilege. To believe that the consumer should do their own research when deciding on a product assumes that they both have the time and access to information that is required to do so.
ReplyDeleteIn order for it to be fair to require the burden to be on the consumer, you have to insure that everyone has equal access to the same resources. I think because it is impossible to guarantee such a thing, the burden should really lay on the producer.
This post reminds me of the week when we discussed Propaganda in Ken Osgood's Explorations in Modern America class two years ago. One of the readings we were assigned talked about how Edward Bernays, largely held as the founder of public relations in America, was single-handedly responsible for the large spike in American women who smoked cigarettes, due to a marketing campaign in which cigarettes were called "Torches of Freedom" in women's struggle for equal rights. This historical example demonstrates just how duplicitous people, especially producers, can be. If no ground rules are set, things like this would happen all the time, and we would have consumers buying things that are dangerous to their health left or right. It therefore falls on the producer to honest to the consumer about all possible risks to the consumer that their product might entail, so that the consumer can make an informed decision about whether or not the risk is worth it. A producer is not responsible for the adverse effects their product might have on a consumer once all of these risks are made apparent. Because most action to restrict dishonest advertising by tobacco companies has thus far been at the government level, I would say that tobacco companies are still responsible to some extent for the health problems their products cause consumers.
ReplyDelete