




































EVAIA: International Journal of Ethics and Values, Vol. 2 No. 1, December 2021 (ISSN: 2787-0448) 

 

Onipede & Falana                                                                                                                 36 
 

LYING AS A MARKETING STRATEGY IN NIGERIA: A MORAL 

ASSESSMENT 

 

Gabriel Tunde Onipede 

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8320-5455 

Assistant Lecturer, 

Department of General Studies,  

Federal College of Dental Technology and Therapy, 

Enugu, Nigeria. 

moscoagora@gmail.com 

& 

Kehinde Falana 
Lecturer 11, 

Department of General Studies,  

Institute of Technology-Enhanced-Learning and Digital Humanities 

Federal University of Technology, Akure. Ondo State 

kfalana@futa.edu.ng 

 

Abstract 

In today’s volatile world of commerce, the use of advertisements as a strategy 

for bringing to the awareness of the populace, products that are available for 

purchase is common. Thus numerous commercials are today put up to bring 

about human awareness of products and services. Most of these advertisements 

either exaggerate or say what is not the case about some products and services. 

In other instance, these commercials even employ both exaggerations and lies 

to suit their ends. It is therefore pertinent to question whether or not these acts 

are morally permissible. This study analytically assesses lying as a marketing 

strategy in Nigeria using the classical utilitarian and duty ethics of Jeremy 

Bentham and Immanuel Kant respectively as a paradigm. The paper, a critical 

analysis, finds that classical utilitarianism endorse lying on the plata of 

consequences. More so, this paper finds that Kant’s deontological ethics on the 

other hand, condemns the very act of lying as a moral vice regardless of its 

positive consequences. Following the application of these normative ethical 

principles, the study concludes that these normative theories concerning lying 

as a marketing strategy are inadequate. As such, the study proposes situation 

ethics as a plausible alternative to guide the use of lies in marketing products 

and services in Nigeria. 

Keywords: Lying; Marketing; Moral Assessment; Strategy 

 

Introduction 
It is a common sight to encounter marketing executives striving fervently to 

command the attention and purchase from the public. They may even go as far 

as trying to use soothing expressions, lies and in some cases hilarious jokes to 

make people purchase the products that they are advertising. The moral 



EVAIA: International Journal of Ethics and Values, Vol. 2 No. 1, December 2021 (ISSN: 2787-0448) 

 

Onipede & Falana                                                                                                                 37 
 

underpinning of their method or techniques has usually been taken for granted. 

If someone buys an advertised or marketed product from an executive that came 

out of the blues, but the product, after application, fails to deliver, what 

happens? Would the consumer simply wallow in foolishness or sheer ignorance 

for being swayed by some of these vendors with sugar-coated tongues? What 

are the moral implications for saying a product has the capacity to fix so and so 

but fails? Are there any ethical theories that can justify the lies, usually 

employed by vendors? What are marketing techniques or strategies? Can they 

necessarily do without lies?   

 

As a way of attempting to answer these questions and actualize its aim, the 

present essay has five divisions, the first being this introduction. In the second 

part, the idea of marketing strategy/technique is exposed. The place of lies as a 

marketing strategy is therefore extrapolated. In the third rift of this study, two 

popular normative ethical theories: utilitarianism and deontology are employed 

to assess whether or not it is morally permissible to lie about products and 

services. We find both of these fairly inadequate. In the fourth section, we 

recommend situation ethics as a more plausible paragon that may justify lying 

as marketing strategy. The fifth part concludes the study.   

 

Rationale behind Lying as a Marketing Strategy 

In the words of Margarita Isoraite (2009: 114): “strategic marketing is a 

philosophy that leads to the process by which organizations, groups and 

individuals obtain what they need and want by identifying value, providing for 

it, communicating it and delivering it to others.” On a similar note, Hambrick 

and Frerickson (2001: 23) adds that “marketing strategy has five elements: it 

deals with where the organization plans to be active; how it will get there; how 

it will succeed in the market place; what the speed and sequence of moves will 

be; and how the organization will obtain profits.” For Kotler, “marketing 

strategy is marketing logic according to which the business unit is marketing. 

Marketing strategy focuses on target customers” (Kotler, 2003: 29).  Whilst 

talking about the idea of marketing strategy, Anderson (1982: 98) explains 

further that:  

The real lesson of a strategic marketing 

philosophy is that better performing 

organizations recognize the basic and 

enduring nature of the customer needs 

they are attempting to satisfy. It is the 

technology of want satisfactions which is 

transitory. The products and services 

used to satisfy customer needs and wants 

changes constantly   

 



EVAIA: International Journal of Ethics and Values, Vol. 2 No. 1, December 2021 (ISSN: 2787-0448) 

 

Onipede & Falana                                                                                                                 38 
 

From the foregoing except that human wants are not only insatiable but also 

transitory. With the meaning and supposed nature of marketing strategy tersely 

stated, the scenarios that introduced this study demands revision from a 

philosophical perspective.  On what grounds does a marketing strategy fulfill 

the wants of consumers? Is it based on the supposed perception of the 

manufacturers or the consumers? More so, given that no two persons have the 

same genotype, would what work suitably for one person necessarily replicate 

similar output in another? When questions of this nature are posed to any 

marketing strategist, it is likely that the vendor may either lie or even exaggerate 

the truth regarding the efficacy of products and services. Before attempting to 

answer these questions, it is important to first engage in a conceptual 

clarification of what lying entails. 

 

Peter Hanks (1976: 321), writes that lying “is saying the opposite of what is 

true.” Now if lying is a marketing strategy employed directly or indirectly for 

profit accumulation, what are the ethical problems latent therein? Perhaps more 

importantly, in what specific ways does falsehood enter the fray of marketing 

products and services? In mind here is the connection between ethics and 

product decisions. Marketing executives are faced with a lot of ethical problems 

related to planning and application of product strategies (Siham, 2013).   

 

For example, in new product development process, since ethics and legal 

subjects are discussed less than it is needed, faulty products are put on the 

market and so these products damage consumers (Morgan, 1993). Other ethical 

issues related to product decisions, information on labels can sometimes be used 

as deceptive although it is technically true (Chonko, 1995). It is also worthy of 

considering “rubbish problem which packing cause after its usage” (Menezes, 

1993: 289). As a consequence, marketing executives are usually faced with 

‘bending’ the facts of the products just for the sake of exchange, with minimal 

regard for health and life.   

 

Given the reasons adduced above, it is crucial to ask: what ethical underpinning 

serves the occasion for lying as a marketing strategy? Are there any ethical 

justifications for it? If there is what are they? At this juncture, it would be 

pertinent to make some forays into the popular normative ethical theories to see 

if there could be any justification for lying to consumers about products and 

services by sales or marketing executive. This move is the core of this research 

since its fundamental aim and scope is not to engage in a conceptual analysis 

of lying but to investigate what moral normative framework is suitable in 

endorsing or rejecting (depending on context and status quo), the practice.  

 

Traditional Normative Ethics and the Place of Lies in Business Ethics 

Utilitarianism is one of the most powerful and persuasive approaches to 

normative ethics in the history of philosophy. Though not fully articulated until 



EVAIA: International Journal of Ethics and Values, Vol. 2 No. 1, December 2021 (ISSN: 2787-0448) 

 

Onipede & Falana                                                                                                                 39 
 

the 19th century, proto-utilitarian positions can be discerned throughout the 

history of ethical theory (Tannsjo, 2002); (Aigbodioh, 1999). 

 

Though there are many varieties of the view discussed, utilitarianism is 

generally held to be the view that the morally right action is the action that 

produces the most good. There are many ways to spell out this general claim. 

One thing to note is that the theory is a form of consequentialism: the right 

action is understood entirely in terms of consequences produced. What 

distinguishes utilitarianism from egoism has to do with the scope of the relevant 

consequences. On the utilitarian view, one ought to maximize the overall good 

— that is, consider the good of others as well as one's own good. In simple 

terms, one may state the utilitarian criterion of rightness of particular actions as 

follows: an action is right if and only if, in the situation, there was no alternative 

to it which would have resulted in a larger sum total of welfare in the world. 

This means that if there was something the agent could have done instead of the 

action he or she actually performed, which would have resulted in a larger sum 

total of welfare in the world, then he or she acted wrongly (Tannsjo, 2002).  

 

Utilitarianism is also distinguished by impartiality and agent-neutrality. 

Everyone's happiness counts the same. When one maximizes the good, it is the 

good impartially considered. One person’s good count for no more than anyone 

else’s good. Further, the reason one person has to promote the overall good is 

the same reason anyone else has to so promote the good. It is peculiar to no one.  

 

When we consider all of what has been briefly stated about utilitarianism on the 

one hand, and the situation of the marketing executive who lies to have his/her 

products purchased, one could query if or not the happiness of the greatest 

number is attained in the process of lying.  

 

As a matter of fact, utilitarianism does not see anything wrong with the process 

of lying itself. On the contrary, emphasis is laid on the outcome, the 

consequence of the lie. Now, putting matters in the proper perspective, would 

Bentham endorse that marketing executives lie about products and services? 

The answer is affirmative, provided the consequence of the lie would produce 

the happiness of the greatest number. In essence, if the outcome of the lie would 

produce more happiness than unhappiness then Bentham would praise the 

marketing executive. On the other hand, Bentham would object if the whole 

lying endeavour would end up leaving fewer people happy but more people in 

unpleasant situation. 

 

It is therefore the case that for utilitarianism, in the classical sense, lying as a 

marketing technique is morally permissible if and only if the greatest good of 

the greatest number is realised. This line of reasoning runs into problems. It has 

the tendency to pass lying as morally permissible if outcomes are favourable. 



EVAIA: International Journal of Ethics and Values, Vol. 2 No. 1, December 2021 (ISSN: 2787-0448) 

 

Onipede & Falana                                                                                                                 40 
 

However, it is seldom for a moral agent to always know what moral choice or 

decision would yield the happiness of the greatest number. Furthermore, just 

what it means to say: ‘happiness of the greatest number’ remains a subject of 

controversy. These, precisely the pitfall that makes lying as a market technique 

or strategy flawed. It overlooks the idea of lying itself as to whether or not it is 

morally blameworthy or not. At this juncture, Immanuel Kant’s deontological 

or duty ethics enter the fray. 

 

It would be worthwhile to state from the outset that Immanuel Kant’s strand of 

ethics falls under that which is generally considered as Deontological ethics 

(Tannjo, 2002).   The roots of the word ‘deontology’ can be found in the Greek 

words ‘deon’, duty, and ‘logos’, science. The best-known representative of 

deontological ethics is the German philosopher Immanuel Kant (Tannsjo, 

2002). According to deontological ethics, some types of actions are prohibited, 

or obligatory, irrespective of their consequences (Tannsjo, 2002). While 

developing his ethics, Immanuel Kant begins by announcing that “two things 

fill the mind with constant awe and admiration – the starry heavens above and 

the moral law within” (Kant, 1998: 43).   

 

Kant seems to be of the view or perspective that the only thing good in all 

circumstances is goodwill. Kant (1998: 7) further advances that “It is 

impossible to think of anything at all in the world, or indeed even beyond it that 

could be considered good without limitation except a goodwill.” There are 

imperatives that Kant employed to justify his ethics.  

 

For Immanuel Kant (1998: 31) “there is, therefore, only a single categorical 

imperative and it is this: act only in accordance with that maxim through which 

you can at the same time will that it become a universal law.” This is the first 

of the three imperatives. The point Kant makes in his presentation of the 

categorical imperative is that an act becomes imperative (or commanded) when 

it ought to be applied to everyone. Miller (1992: 462) comments: 

[A] categorical imperative would command you 

to do X inasmuch as X is intrinsically right, that 

is, right in and of itself, aside from any other 

considerations—no "ifs," no conditions, no strings 

attached . . . a categorical imperative is 

unconditional (no "ifs") and independent of any 

things, circumstances, goals, or desires. It is for 

this reason that only a categorical imperative can 

be a universal and binding law, that is, a moral 

law, valid for all rational beings at all times. 

 

Our understanding of what Kant is saying here is simply that we should think 

of what actions we want to engage in such a way that it were a universal law. If 



EVAIA: International Journal of Ethics and Values, Vol. 2 No. 1, December 2021 (ISSN: 2787-0448) 

 

Onipede & Falana                                                                                                                 41 
 

I intend to stab my friend to death for instance, Kant seems to be saying that 

would I concede that this (i.e. stabbing one’s friend) were a universal law? This 

is one of the imperatives. 

 

Kant’s (1998: 38) second maxim in his own words is thus: “So act that you use 

humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at 

the same time as an end, never merely as a means.”  

Kant thought that these and other formulations are equivalent. And from the 

categorical imperative he ‘deduces’ all sorts of moral duties. For instance, he 

deduces that it is always wrong to tell a lie, to kill, to commit suicide, or to 

break a promise. It is hard to understand how he can believe that the different 

formulations of the categorical imperative can be equivalent, and it is hard to 

follow his argument when he ‘deduces’ different duties from the imperative 

(Tannsjo, 2002). These are even more entrenched in his third maxim: “act only 

so that the will through its maxims could regard itself at the same time as 

universally lawgiving” (Kant, 1998: 39). The will is therefore autonomous and 

free, for Kant.  

 

With the categorical imperative as the guiding principle of morality, it becomes 

the impetus for determining whether an act is moral or not. At this point it 

should be emphasized that Kant's categorical imperative is concerned only with 

general and abstract moral actions. Therefore, the categorical imperative 

determines whether or not any act is right or wrong. It is at this point that to do 

the opposite (to not will to do an act that everyone in similar circumstances 

would do) would be to invite contradiction.  

 

In summary, Immanuel Kant's meta-ethical system relies on the fundamental 

realization of the moral law that exists in the agent (subject). When we view the 

world (the object) we know a priori that morality is universal and necessary. In 

order to determine whether or not a particular act is good or bad, morally 

speaking, we must apply the categorical imperative. This imperative or 

command requires that we fulfil our duty in the circumstance the act is 

occurring in. The classification of the act rests on whether or not the underlying 

principle is a practical contradiction (antinomian). If it is not, then the act is 

considered to be morally obligatory (Guttrie, 2008). 

 

The foray into Kant’s metaphysics of morals has been able to show among other 

things that there is a sense of duty surrounding morality. One is commissioned 

to act on duty. In other words, a moral agent is either blame worthy or 

praiseworthy if the act is committed out of a sense of duty. Upon the application 

of Kant’s ethics to the marketing strategy of lying, some crucial ideas may be 

deduced. 

 



EVAIA: International Journal of Ethics and Values, Vol. 2 No. 1, December 2021 (ISSN: 2787-0448) 

 

Onipede & Falana                                                                                                                 42 
 

Kant would debunk any form of lying to promote the purchasing power of 

goods and services by marketing agents. This is because, and as deduced from 

his Imperatives, if one willed lying as a universal act, one would see that it lacks 

moral support. More so, the whole affair of lying about products and services 

does no more than to use fellow humans;, in this case, consumers as a means to 

an end, but not as an end in themselves.  

 

However, a utilitarian marketing executive could riposte that sometimes, lying 

or exaggeration about products and services could make prospective customers, 

who would not ordinarily purchase the product, have a change of mind. 

Therefore, it is justified as a marketing strategy. 

 

The above line of reasoning is not misplaced. However, one cannot wish away 

the place of the very existence of ‘lying’ as a moral vice. Kant would implore 

the marketing executive to assess whether or not the very act of lying would 

make the world a better place if everyone takes lying as a virtue. The answer is 

definitely obvious: if lying as marketing strategy is willed universally, there 

would be chaos and disorder as a consequence. Hence, on no grounds would 

Immanuel Kant endorse the marketing technique of lying. 

 

So far we have been able to consider the two popular normative ethical theories 

on the subject of lying as marketing technique. Given the inadequacies that 

present themselves in each of them, it is pertinent to query at this juncture, 

whether or not there is other ethical theory that is suitable. By suitable, we mean 

a theory that is able to admit the inner kernels of utilitarianism and duty ethics. 

 

Situation Ethics and the Viability of Lying as a Marketing Technique 

Given that ethics is a series of moral rules and principles, it therefore follows 

that situations will determine which rules would or not be applicable. And if 

William Barclay’s (1972) submission is taken as axiomatic, situation ethics 

may then be construed as “a circumstantial ethics that appropriates and utilizes 

the prevailing factors at a time in the determination of a piece of action” (Igboin, 

2005: 49). 

 

Situation ethics insists that each moral choice must be determined by one’s 

particular context or situation, i.e. by a consideration of the outcomes that 

various courses of actions might have. As a consequence, a good act in one 

situation may be adjudged otherwise in another situation. According to its 

foremost proponent, Joseph Fletcher (1997), the only motivating factor in 

situation ethics is love. This has been validated by Joseph Omeregbe (1993: 

119) who harps: “the ground norm of situation ethics is love”. Fletcher (1997: 

117) amplifies in this connection that: 

 



EVAIA: International Journal of Ethics and Values, Vol. 2 No. 1, December 2021 (ISSN: 2787-0448) 

 

Onipede & Falana                                                                                                                 43 
 

The situationist enters into every decision 

making situation fully armed with the 

ethical maxims of his community and he 

treats them with respect as illuminators to 

his problems. Just the same, he is 

prepared in any situation to compromise 

then…if love seems better served doing 

so. 

 

Fletcher’s situation ethics falls between the two extremes of legalism and 

antinormianism. The former defines moral rules and principles as absolute laws 

that must of necessity be obeyed. Immanuel Kant’s duty ethics, briskly 

considered in the preceding section, clearly falls within this spectrum. 

Meanwhile, the latter insists that man is free and as a result no law or principle 

can guide human decision-making. Fletcher (1997) proposes six axioms that are 

central to situation ethics: 

1. Only one thing is intrinsically good; namely love and nothing else; 

2. The ruling norm of Christian decision is love and nothing else; 

3. Love and justice are the same, for justice is love distributed and nothing 

else; 

4. Love wills the neighbour’s good whether we like it or not; 

5. Only the end justifies the means and nothing else; and 

6. Love’s decisions are made situationally, not prescriptively. 

 

It is the case from the discussion so far, that in situation ethics, the ‘rule of love’ 

supersedes the ‘rule of law’. When a marketing executive takes to the streets to 

sell products and services, situation ethics call for the principle of love as a basis 

for moral action. Now, one will easily glean that this normative ethical theory 

takes care of the pitfalls present in each of the traditional theories we concerned 

with hitherto. For if I have to employ lies as a marketing technique, situation 

ethic demands that I reflect if love is promoted. In other words, if I have to sell 

a product, employing lies as a paragon, will love be promoted in this guise? If 

the answer is affirmative, Fletcher endorses the action. However, and on the 

contrary, if the moral agent finds that things outside love would be promoted, 

the action would be deemed as a moral vice and consequently leaves the moral 

agent as morally blameworthy.  

 

Conclusion 

There is no doubt that when one considers lying as a marketing technique, it 

would be sheer ignorance to downplay its efficacy. There is any hardly 

advertisement about products and services that does not either lie or exaggerate 

the efficacy of products and services. However, situation ethics goes beyond 

the prescriptions of utilitarianism and duty ethics to posit that love should be 

the ruling principle. If lying to sell so and so product does not breed love, it 



EVAIA: International Journal of Ethics and Values, Vol. 2 No. 1, December 2021 (ISSN: 2787-0448) 

 

Onipede & Falana                                                                                                                 44 
 

would be morally blameworthy, situation ethics maintain. There are 

circumstances where lies told out of love have proven to be morally 

praiseworthy. It is therefore close to the opposite of the truth to consider lying 

as necessarily evil or the output of lying as to the happiness of the greatest 

number. A consideration of the principle of love should be at the core of 

marketing strategies. 

 

Works Cited 
Aigbodioh, J.A. (1999). Practical Issues in Applied Ethics: The Facts, 

Arguments and Opinions. Ekpoma: Inno Printing Press. 

Anderson, P.F. (1982). “Marketing, Strategic Planning and the Theory of the 

Firm”. Journal of Marketing. 46 (Spring). pp 15-26. 

Barclay, W. (1972). Ethics in a Permissive Society. London: Fontana. 

Bentham, J., (1948). An Introduction to the Principles Of Morals And 

Legislation New York: Macmillan. 

Fletcher, J. (1997). Situation Ethics: The New Morality. Louisville: John Knox  

Gutrie, S.L. (2008). “Immanuel Kant and the Categorical Imperative” The 

Examined Life On-Line Journal of Philosophy. 2(7). 

Hambrick, D.C., Fredrickson, J.W. (2001). “Are you sure you have a Strategy?” 

Academy of Management Executive. 4(15). pp 48-59. 

Hanks, P. (ed.) Encyclopedic World Dictionary. London: Hamlyn, 1976. 

Igboin, B. (2005). “Situationism and Christian Ethics: An Appraisal” P. Iroegbu 

and A. Echekwube (eds.) Kpim of Moral Ethics. Lagos: Heinemann 

Educational Books. 

Isoraite, M. (2009). “Theoretical Aspects of Marketing Strategy”. Ekonomika 

ir Vadyba: Aktualijos Ir Perspektyvos. 1(14). pp 114–125. 

Kant, I, (1998) Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals, trans M. Gregor, 

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 

Kant, I., (1989) “Good Will, Duty, and the Categorical Imperative” in A. 

Serafini (ed.) Ethics and Social Concern, New York: Paragon House 

Publishers. 

Kotler, P. (2003). Rinkodaros Principai. Kaunas: Poligrafija ir informatika. 

Maclntyre. J. (1973). A Short History of Ethics. New York: Macmillan 

Company. 

Miller, E.L., (1992) Questions that Matter: An Invitation to Philosophy, 

Colorado: McGraw Hill Inc. 

Omoregebe, J.I. (1993). Ethics: A Systematic and Historical Study. Lagos: 

JOJA Publishers. 

Siham, B. (2013). “Marketing Mix – An Area of Unethical Practices?” British 

Journal of Marketing Studies. 1(4). pp 20-8  

Tannsjo, T. (2002). Understanding Ethics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University 

Press Ltd. 
 


