Riquelvin Rojas II

PHIL 1104

Jenelle Salisbury

August 1st, 2020

Final Paper

Puffery in Our World Today

Day after day consumers around the country are deceived by the exaggerated

advertisement from companies trying to sell their products. Marketers use various methods in

efforts of persuading people to buy a product or service. One of the methods that sparks my

attention is called Puffery, which is the exaggeration of a product to make it seem like more than

it is. Although it is a good marketing skill that serves its purpose and it isn’t moral under Kant's

eyes. Kant believed that what made an action right was the agent’s motive. What marketers

continue to do to the public, isn’t morally right because their motive is just to get the consumer

to buy the product. According to Kantian ethics, one can see how Puffery can be an immoral

marketing strategy as the intention of the marketers isn’t really out of good will as they proceed

to boast their products to lure consumers in.

Puffery exists in many of the brands and companies we shop for today. One can notice

puffery being used by reading keywords such as, “high quality,” “perfect,” and “best.” However,

one can also catch this marketing strategy being used when there’s some boasting statements

about a product. For example, when the iPhone 6 was being released, it was described as it being

bigger than regular smartphones at the time. When displaying and announcing the product,

Apple used the words “Bigger than bigger” to describe the size of the phone. They exaggerated
the size of the phone to lure more customers in hope of them being persuaded by the fact that the

phone is much bigger. Another example could be famous American brand “Gillette” which sells

safety razors and other personal care items. Gillette uses puffery when trying to promote their

shaving razors. In one of their ads, they state, “The best a man can get.” They used the word

‘best’ to make the consumer believe that they won’t find anything that can compare, ultimately

leading to the consumer to purchase that product. Many may wonder how is puffery legal when

it is basically giving false ideas to consumers. Well, it turns out that puffery is legal to a certain

degree and most courts consider it as immaterial. However, if there is a misrepresentation or a

clear lie, a company could be held accountable for false advertising which is the advertisement of

false information to mislead consumers. The difference between the two is that puffery is to

attract more consumers instead of false advertising which is to purposely deceive. While one

can’t go to jail for using puffery, false advertising is fraudulent and can lead someone into

serving some time.

The Kantian deontology is a duty-based moral theory meaning some acts may be right or

wrong, and people have to act accordingly no matter if the consequences are good or bad.

Kantianism prioritizes the intentions of an actor which ultimately must be good, if one has good

will, then they have respect for the moral wall. Main focus of Kantianism is that we do the right

thing because we recognize that as the right thing. A term we learned in class which is ‘non-

consequentialist’ can describe Kant’s ethics. Like mentioned previously, the consequences of the

act don’t matter as long as the act was out of good will. While reading on about the Kantian

deontology, I was introduced to the Categorical Imperative used to test maxims, specially, the

Humanity Formulation. It states, “Always treat a human being (yourself included) as an end, and

never as a mere means.” (Shafer-Landau 119) Shafer-Landau explains how treating someone as
an end means treating them with the respect that they deserve, while treating someone as a

means is using them to be able to achieve one of your goals. For example, in Drake and Josh,

they both made a bet on who can talk to the most girls within a week, so they were both going

around using the girls to achieve a higher number than the other. Kant would ultimately find this

bet between the two immoral because their intentions weren’t out of good will and they are using

these girls to achieve their goal.

When one thinks about puffery, they would think that it’s just a marketing strategy,

however don’t see the wrongs about it. Going back to Kant and his ethic theory, we are

introduced to the idea that one shouldn’t use someone else as an end of means. Ultimately,

puffery clearly displays this as marketers use this strategy to use consumers for their money.

Kant wouldn’t like this strategy as it is the complete opposite of one of the Categorical

Imperatives. The maxims of this strategy are non beneficial to the consumers as they probably

are in hope of good quality when the product may have been boasted a bit. Kant’s moral theory

is duty-based, which prioritizes the intentions of the actor. The intentions of all the companies

that boast their products, use captions that will catch a consmer’s attention, is to ultimately get

money. One may argue that this strategy is not immoral when thinking about other moral

theories, however, under Kant’s deontology, it is wrong. Shafer-Landau states, “Kant regarded

many of the moral rules as absolute, and so insisted that it was never acceptable to break them...”

(Shafer-Landau 125) This emphasizes how even if breaking them lead to a better result, that isn’t

allowed. The future of actions wasn’t Kant’s concern when debating whether an action was right

or wrong, instead like mentioned previously, the person’s mazim.

In conclusion, puffery is a popular marketing strategy that exaggerates a product in hope

of persuading consumers to purchase. However, one is then introduced to the Kantian

deontology which shows why this strategy can be immoral. According to one of the Categorical

Imperatives used to test the maxims, the Humanity Formulation says that one should always treat

others as an end and never as a mere means. Markerters use their consumers as a mere means

since their intentions are negative and it’s ultimately to get money out of them. The maxims of

marketers are no good and they aren’t concerned about the consumers as long as money is

coming in. One can see how Puffery can be an immoral marketing strategy as the intention of the

marketers isn’t really out of good will as they proceed to boast their products to lure consumers

in.
Works Cited

- Cureton, Adam, and Robert Johnson. Kant’s Moral Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab,

Stanford University, 2019, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy ,

plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2019/entries/kant-moral/.

- LaMance, Ken. “Puffery Laws.” LegalMatch Law Library, 20 June 2018,

www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/puffery-laws.html.

- Shaffer-Landau, Russ. A Concise Introduction to Ethics. Oxford University Press, 2020.