Is the Practice of Neuromarketing Immoral?

Neuromarketing is the science behind what why buy and why we buy. It is based on several different principles from areas of study such as marketing, economics, biology and psychology.

This idea argues that we consume because we are genetically and biologically programmed to maximize our probability of increasing fitness. Fitness is defined as the number of individuals that we produce. In order to maximize fitness, organisms behave in ways that preserve their energy and resources, frequently at the expense of another organism. A doctor of neuroscience by the name of Dr. Schwartz explained that our model of how society should be run is based on these ideas of sociobiology. Companies then correspondingly advertise products that will supposedly help people to meet these predetermined goals. Schwartz argues that “We are living in a time in which the pursuit of self-interest in the free-market economy provides the primary metaphor for understanding social relations. As a result, our social and cultural categories overlap with our economic ones,” (Schwartz). The problem with this way of thinking is that we must always be the best and brightest in order to maximize our fitness, and the easiest way to accomplish all of that is to consume. What began as a simple biological theory as do why organisms behave the way they do has now developed into an excuse for why we continue to act this way currently in the developed world.

Additionally, Neuromarketing uses technology such as fMRI scans to record changes in blood flow as a result of a stimulus, as well as EEG, or Electroencephalography. This system measures the electrical activity in the brain using tiny sensors attached to the top of the head (NeuroSky). Although none of this seems particularly invasive, the conclusions drawn from this data have astounding effects. In one study, a group of individuals were hooked up to an eye-tracking device and asked to choose a type of cereal from a long aisle of choices. The technology measured how long each individual’s attention was given to a particular object, and which ones it skipped over. From here, the marketers were able to interpret this data and formulate their marketing strategy to make their product receive more attention from people (TedX). 
Neuromarketing goes beyond simply understanding why we consume what we do. It also allows for companies with access to different technologies to be able to manipulate their advertising in a way that would increase products.  It brings up the question of moral ethics and asks whether researchers are acting beneficently. The idea behind beneficence is when a customer, consumer, participant or patient is treated in a way that respects his or her welfare. This includes their health, and happiness. By manipulating a shopping experience in a way that points a consumer in a certain direction without being transparent about this action, marketers are not acting beneficently, nor autonomously, as they are simply not allowing the customer to make their own choice. Additionally, they learning how to make a product that may not be beneficial much more appealing. 

NeuroSky: http://neurosky.com/2016/08/neuromarketing-and-eeg-measuring-engagement-in-advertising/

Schwartz, B. (1987). The battle for human nature: science, morality, and modern life. New York: Norton

TedX: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeQ7C4JLpug