A prevalent question in business ethics is whether or not advertising is morally problematic because it can be prone to deception, manipulation, and the association of non-market desires with a marketed product. Whether it's advertising strategy, production, or product quality, people continually look for ways to get away with the good and bad of advertising. In this essay I will evaluate four advertisements based on their ethical purpose by adopting the deontological ethical theory of Kantianism, developed by Immanuel Kant, to demonstrate that this argument proves true that advertising is morally problematic. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay The first controversial advertisement I selected is one published by an organization called People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA for short) in which a model/actress named Pamela Anderson is depicted sitting in a sexualized position with I'm wearing a little bikini, top and bottom, with the body parts labeled with black marker to essentially imply that it has the same parts as the animals we kill to eat. This ad attempts to convey that since the animals we are killing for food have the same parts as us humans (particularly women), it is basically as if we are killing our own. The motivation behind using a well-known female sex icon as the body of this advert further sexualises women as it is questionable why they did not select a male to use for this advert or even include a male alongside a female . I understand the importance of animal rights messages, but sexualizing women and treating them like a piece of meat by not featuring a man in the advert at all is sexist, manipulative and definitely emphasizes the use of non-market desires (i.e. sexuality) to convey the desired and extremely important message. Therefore, between the deceptive motives and intentions for running this advertisement and the use of the female body to bring attention and support to animal cruelty, I would say that this advertisement is unsuccessful and deceptive to society. Kant would say that this advertisement is unethical as it strongly believes in intrinsic values ​​and does not treat people as objects, for example how Pamela Anderson was used in the advertisement and compares humans to animals, animals are possessed by humans and to show a female is to say that females are equivalent to animals owned by men. If the advertiser had shown in his advertisement how ending animal cruelty is the key to staying healthy since it is a duty and the right thing to do, then this act would be considered ethical. But, if the intention is to enforce the practice of ending animal cruelty and, by default, increasing the size of the market and selling the message would be considered unethical. Therefore, it can be said with certainty that this advertisement was created based on the company's selfish beliefs of increasing income and broadening the vision of the product with the aim of exploiting the basic wants and needs of consumers by acting as a distraction from the product same. The second advertisement selected is from the brand Sisley, a fashion brand that sells cosmetics, skin care products and perfumes. This advertisement shows two models leaning on a table on which a white dress with thin straps is placed. The two models use what appear to be straws to make it look like they are sniffing the dress on the table with the.