Why The Marketing Cannot Discuss Its Own Ethics In The Neoliberal World? A Meta-Marketing Discussion For The Theory Of Objectivation Of The Marketing And Practice Of Marketing The Derivative Financial Instruments

Öz

Science branches have a small share qualitatively and quantitatively studies on their own ethics in all of the studies in that science and it has spread over many branches of science. Formation of main ideologies such as Liberalism and Marxism, which affects the politics as well, caused the science branches such as marketing to focus on serving this system.  Becoming monopoly of the capitalism and also Liberalism and Neoliberalism relevant to it has weakened the ability of these disciplines to produce alternative and as a result of this philosophical studies have decreased.

The purpose of this study is to understand the causes of the decrease of ethical studies in marketing science and determine the necessary preconditions to increase the studies again. As a result of the theoretical discussion, it has been determined as a prerequisite for marketing science to go beyond Neo-Liberalism as a main ideology for ethical evaluation and then to make comparisons over alternative systems. In this context, the science world of the scientist and the definitions of the wealth distribution, risk, consumption concepts made by main systems were taken into consideration. In order to embody the theoretical argument, the marketing of the derivative financial instruments produced by the Neoliberal system is exemplified. Specific ethical discussion topics and similar approaches to other branches of science that arise with this embodiment were discussed as suggestions of this study. 

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Meta-Marketing,Ethics of Marketing,Neoliberalism,Philosophy of Science,Financial Instruments

Why The Marketing Cannot Discuss Its Own Ethics In The Neoliberal World? A Meta-Marketing Discussion For The Theory Of Objectivation Of The Marketing And Practice Of Marketing The Derivative Financial Instruments

Öz

Science branches have a small share qualitatively and quantitatively studies on their own ethics in all of the studies in that science and it has spread over many branches of science. Formation of main ideologies such as Liberalism and Marxism, which affects the politics as well, caused the science branches such as marketing to focus on serving this system.  Becoming monopoly of the capitalism and also Liberalism and Neoliberalism relevant to it has weakened the ability of these disciplines to produce alternative and as a result of this philosophical studies have decreased.

The purpose of this study is to understand the causes of the decrease of ethical studies in marketing science and determine the necessary preconditions to increase the studies again. As a result of the theoretical discussion, it has been determined as a prerequisite for marketing science to go beyond Neo-Liberalism as a main ideology for ethical evaluation and then to make comparisons over alternative systems. In this context, the science world of the scientist and the definitions of the wealth distribution, risk, consumption concepts made by main systems were taken into consideration. In order to embody the theoretical argument, the marketing of the derivative financial instruments produced by the Neoliberal system is exemplified. Specific ethical discussion topics and similar approaches to other branches of science that arise with this embodiment were discussed as suggestions of this study. 

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Meta-Marketing,Ethics of Marketing,Neoliberalism,Philosophy of Science,Financial Instruments

Kaynakça

1. AMABLE, Bruno (2011). “Morals and Politics in the Ideology of Neo-Liberalism”, Socio-Economic Review, 2011:9, 3-30.
2. ARICIOĞLU, M. Atilla, Aydan Tutan (2008). “Etik Etkisini Geliştirme Modeli ve Bir Uygulama”, Erciyes Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, sayı:30, 47-76.
3. BEAUCHAMP, Tom L., Norman E. Bowie (1983). Ethical Theory and Business, 2nd Edition, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
4. BILLINGTON, Ray (1993). Living Philosophy. An Introduction to Moral Thought, Second Edition, London: Routledge.
5. BROWNE, Borden P. (1892). The Principles of Ethics, USA: American Book Company.
6. CLARKE, John (2008). “Living with/in and Without Neo-Liberalism”, European Journal of Anthropology, 2008:51, 135-147.
7. ERICKSON, Richard, Dean Barry and Aaron Doyle (2000). “The Moral Hazards of Neo-Liberalism: Lessons From the Private Insurance Industry”, Economy and Society, Vol:29, 532-558.
8. HUNT, Shelby D., Scott Vitell (1986). “A General Theory of Marketing Ethics”, Journal of Macromarketing, Volume:6, Issue:1, 5-16.

9. KARABIYIK, Hüseyin Çağatay (2016). Nöropazarlama Çerçevesinde Tüketici Teorisi ve Yeniden Tanımlanması Gereken Homoekonomikus Kavramı, Konya: T.C. Konya Necmettin Erbakan Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Yüksek Lisans Tezi.
10. KOSLOWSKI, Peter (2001). “Principles of Ethical Economy”, Issues in Business Ethics vol:17, USA: Springer Science.
11. KUHN, Thomas S. (1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Second Edition, Enlarged, Chicago: The University o Chicago Press.
12. LEWIN, Kurt (1952). Field Theory in Social Science: Selected Theoretical Papers by Kurt Lewin. Dorwin Cartwright Edition, London: Tavistock.
13. MARX, Karl (1867). Das Kapital, Kritik der politistchen Oekonomie, Erster Band, Hamburg: Verlag von Otto Meissner.
14. POPPER, Karl (2005). The Logic of Scientific Discovery, New York: Taylor & Francis Group.
15. SAYER, Andrew (2010). Method In Social Science. A Realist Approach, Revised Second Edition, New York: Routledge.
16. STIGLITZ, Joseph (2008). “The End of Neo-Liberalism?”, Project Syndicate, https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/the-end-of-neo-liberalism?barrier=accessreg, (accessed date: 18.01.2018).
17. STIGLITZ, Joseph (2010). “Moral Bankruptcy”, Mother Jones, http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2010/01/joseph-stiglitz-wall-street-morals/ (accessed date: 18.01.2018).
18. SUTHERLAND, Stuart (2013). Irrationality: The Enemy Within, ed Edition, London: Printer&Martin Ltd.
19. ŞENİĞNE, Billur (2011). Rasyonalite Kavramına Deneysel ve Davranışsal İktisat Bağlamında Yeni Bir Bakış Açısı: “Nöroiktisat, İstanbul: T.C. Marmara Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Doktora Tezi.
20. TAYLOR, Paul W. (1975). Principles of Ethic: An Introduction, 1st Edition, Caliornia: Dickenson Publishing.
21. TOFFLER, Alvin (1975). The Eco-Spasm Report, 3rd Edition, New York: A Bantam Book.
22. TSALIKIS, John, David J. Fritzsche (1989). “Business Ethics: A Literature Review With a Focus on Marketing Ethics”, Journal of Business Ethics, 8, 695-743.
23. TVERSKY Amos, Daniel Kahneman (1986). “Rational Choice and the Framing of Decisions”, The Journal of Business, Vol: 59 No:4 Part 2, 251-278.