Literature Review

 Literature Review 

            Ethical Consumerism and Consumer Ethics

In this analysis, Ethical Consumerism and Consumer Ethics will be defined separately. While there is some overlap and related concepts, it is important to differentiate between the two concepts. Consumer Ethics refers to the idea that the products consumers purchase or consume reflect their values and morals. These reflections of morals and values are separated into three basic categories. Sustainable Consumption involves purchasing products that are environmentally sustainable, for instance, products that are made from recycled materials.  Social Aspects involve being aware of the social impact of consumerism. This also includes being knowledgeable of the impact the companies you’re buying from have. As well as being knowledgeable of their practices. Transparency is the act of seeking knowledge about products and companies to make correct and ethical decisions regarding their purchase.

Ethical Consumerism refers to making conscious decisions regarding purchases that reflect the consumer's values and morals. For a purchase to reflect the values and morals of the consumer, the consumer must have a good understanding of Consumer Ethics, without this understanding, you could not say that the products or companies are reflecting the morals and values of the consumer.

Want, Need, Luxury, and Maslow

In this analysis, we will define and differentiate between three concepts: Needs, Wants, and Luxury Needs. Needs are basic products necessary for survival, such as food, water, shelter, shoes, and clothes. Wants are products that are desired but not essential for survival. Wants are also specific, specific car, specific shows, specific type of phone. The specification within these types of products is what allows them to be defined as Wants. Luxury Needs refer to products that, while in their simplest form, are necessary for survival, but consumers are willing to pay more for, given that it allows them to gain a certain level of social status, comfort or feeling. For example, water, in its simplest form is free, but luxury forms of water such as Evian or Fiji are not. Shoes also, don’t need to have a brand attached to them for them to be shoes, but the brand attached to certain shoes can give consumers a since of comfort, social status, or feeling.

Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs is a well-known theory that outlines the five essential groups of needs that humans must fulfill to survive. These include physiological needs, such as food and clothing. Safety needs, such as stability within employment, healthcare, and living. Love and Belonging needs, such as socialization but specifically friendship, family, and intimacy. Esteem Needs, such as freedom to express, self-esteem and respect. Finally, Self-Actualization needs, which is the need to grow to our full potential. These concepts are understood to be attainable needs that societies and individuals need to survive.

https://www.simplypsychology.org/maslow.html

          

Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca’s New Rhetoric

This text explores the concept of argument, according to Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca, in a way that “characterizes the differential argument structures.” They claim that argumentation, unlike the dictionary definition, is not to make a point or explain the truth, argumentation aims to gain adherence, or acceptance, from those listening.

Argumentation, the basic act of reasoning, according to Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca is not simply to prove the truth of what you are trying to state. Truth, in this case, is not based in logic. The goal is to transfer what you’re trying to state through your audience, it’s to persuade your audience to believe what you’re stating. The truth, as it’s defined in law or science, according to Perelman and Olbrrechts-Tyteca has no space within argumentation because argumentation is psychological. Truth, how it is viewed in The New Rhetoric, is the beliefs, values, opinions of the speaker and what they’re trying to argue. On the other hand, it is also the beliefs, values, and opinions of the audience, and how they’re understanding. Argumentation, as previously defined, is not a space where agreement is missing, and needs to be made or created. Argumentation is the presence of agreement, working towards the persuasion of a topic. Argumentation is not in the ability to change a fact or decide whether a fact is true, not true, or good, or bad. It’s not about definition. Argumentation is strictly seen as being able to persuade a listener to think as you do.

Persuasion, according to The New Rhetoric, occurs when the arguer, rhetor, or speaker, is utilizing the values of the audience. By being able to commit to the audience, through their values and beliefs the audience is willing to commit to your values and beliefs. “To engage in argument, a person must attach some importance to gaining the adherence[commitment] of his interlocutor [listener], to securing his assent [approval or agreement], his mental cooperation.” Meaning that if one wants to argue, commitment to the cause or belief must already be present.

This is defined as ‘The Premises of Argumentation,’ the preparation of argument and the foundation of that argument. “When a speaker… puts forward the premises that are to serve as foundation for his argument, he relies on his hearers’ adherence to the propositions.” Premises, allow the rhetor the ability to set up the argument and make it important or interesting to the listener. This mainly happens in the declarations of Facts or Truths, Presumptions, and Values. These devices are aimed towards making the argument appealing and acceptable to the listener.

 http://faculty.tlu.edu/svrooman/perelman.htm

            For example, if someone really loves their pet dog, but not the idea of feeding their dog raw meat. You might start the argument, to convince them to feed their dog raw meat, by adhering to their love of dogs by starting with, “Dogs are carnivores. So, they should eat meat (Fact/Truth, Premise). We know this because they’re related to wolves (Observed, Premise). Feeding your dog raw meat would make your dog healthy. (Values, Premise)” This begins and creates acceptance to your argument about the subject, because they’re already interested and accepting of the topic. Premises do not always need to be accepted for an argument to occur.

Premise Modifiers are devices within argumentation, that occur after the premise, to bring attention back to it, or to add more information about it. This can occur when the premise was already accepted or occur when the premise was not accepted, to hopefully cause acceptance. Premises and premise modifiers can also overlap. This occurs in ways that cause the argument to feel a certain way or feel a certain distance to the listener (Presence). This can also occur in ways that leave the argument up for interpretation by the listener (Interpretation) if it was not already stated. We will use the previous example for Premises and add Premise Modifiers to it. For example, “If your dog isn’t getting the type of food it needs, it might get sick (Presence, Space, Premise Modifier). Feeding your dog meat will keep it healthy (Presence, Repetition, Premise Modifier).”

http://faculty.tlu.edu/svrooman/perelman.htm

            Arguments Based on the Structure of Reality are arguments that can be both or either based in testimony that is backed by expert opinions or witnesses, such as Law and Science, or arguments that are more Philosophical and Psychological. For instance, Quasi-Logical Arguments use devices that can be defined as Mathematical (Transitivity, if A=B and B=C then A=C), Logical (Contradiction, Logical incompatibility of propositions), and Scientific (Material, Explaining a definitional term) in nature. The Based on the Structure of Reality devices are factors where the reality of the argument, makes the devices more or less helpful to the overall argument. This can be the type of opinion and beliefs the listener has about the situation they themselves or the argument is in. Using the dog example, we used previously. Let’s assume the owner of the dog won’t feed their dog raw meat because it’s expensive. The agreed upon reality, in this case, is the lack of funds, or money, to feed it in a way that keeps it healthy. Your argument, Based on the Structure of Reality, may look something like this, “You spent a lot of money on that dog already (Succession, Waste). If you keep feeding it that nasty kibble, you’ll probably have to pay more in vet bills than you ever did for the dog (Succession, Direction). By telling the owner of the dog that they’ll have to spend more money on the dog if it gets sick, it appeals to their structure of reality, which, is wanting to treat their dog well, and keep it healthy.

http://faculty.tlu.edu/svrooman/perelman.htm

            Establishing the Structure of Reality can come before or after Arguments Based on the Structure of Reality, these devices work in a similar way to how Premise Modifiers do. These are devices that allow you to connect your argument to other, similar arguments or events to solidify your argument even more, by direct example. It also allows you a space to manipulate the argument through, “…generalization … illustration…encourages imitation.” For example, telling the owner that their favorite actress feeds her dog raw food, encourages the listener to feed their dog raw food, but it also uses the actress, someone they look up to, as someone who they should also imitate. “You know Julia Andrews feeds her dogs Buttons and Barney raw food; you could be like her one day if you did that (Model, Establishing the Structure of Reality).” On the contrary you could also do the opposite, using an actor that doesn’t feed their dogs raw food and that the listener either likes or feels impassive towards, to encourage them not to imitate them. “Ewww, do you know who doesn’t feed their dogs raw food? Paris Morgan, do you want to be like Peris Morgan? That guy sucks!(Anti-Model)” Establishing the Structure of Reality before or after your arguments Based on the Structure allows you to play into different varieties of arguments within your argument, while still drawing attention and support back to your overall argument.