The Ethics of Spam

We should probably begin by conceding that a perfectly innocent (if rather dull) potted meat product does not actually entail a great amount of ethical uncertainty, although I suppose one might find the inherent health issues (e.g. excessive sodium, use of preservatives, high fat content) of Spam a bit controversial, and a Vegan might condemn it on the grounds that it represents food harvested from the murdered bodies of our fellow living creatures. Those extremist positions notwithstanding, the title of this post refers to the Internet slang usage of the term "Spam": unsolicited advertising emails, often considered the scourge of all free email systems...

All sarcasm aside, these email messages can be quite annoying, and probably would be even if the majority of them weren't attempts to steal the identity (or at least the money) of the recipient through various forms of Internet fraud. That most of them actually are actively criminal, as well as insulting the recipient's intelligence, just makes the whole thing worse. Most large companies and institutions now use dedicated software to intercept and destroy such emails, and even people on unmonitored email systems will often set their preferences to divert these messages to a "Spam folder" or destroy them outright. Meanwhile, many Internet providers will terminate the contract of anyone they even suspect is using them to generate these emails.

Clearly, no one like getting Spam. The ethical issue arises when you are the one sending it...

There is little doubt that email is the cheapest advertising method ever developed. For no effective cost beyond the salary of the person sending it, one can send form letters (or even personalized messages!) to millions of people at the touch of a button. Even if you are unwilling to spend the money on dedicated Spam software and mailing lists, you can easily develop your own lists from public directories, and create quite nice advertising pieces to send to them using your word processing software. Any email system will probably allow you to send large volumes of email out each day, particularly if you have your own domain and a high bandwidth connection to the Internet. For a small company without a lot of working capital, this may well be your only feasible way to reach a wide audience...

Moreover, the products or services you are offering through your Spam broadcasts might be quite worthwhile, even praiseworthy enterprises. Perhaps you are offering a service that will enable other companies to get the capital they need, or a product that will improve the health of millions of people, or courses that will enable people to obtain better jobs with better salaries and dramatically improve their standard of living. However much people hate receiving unsolicited advertising over their email, surely THESE messages will be an exception to that?

Which, unfortunately, is nothing more than a slippery slope argument. If people hate getting Spam, but your particular Spam is valuable or useful, then it begs the question of just HOW valuable or useful does a piece of Spam have to be before it is okay to send it? Does the advantage realized by society as a whole (e.g. increased sales, resulting in a stronger economy, and whatever business and/or personal advantage is realized by people or companies responding to the Spam, resulting in better living conditions AND a stronger economy) outweigh the inconvenience experience by the rest of the people who get the Spam? And who should be empowered to make that decision? And who's even mentioned Freedom of Speech vs. Privacy issues yet?

It's worth thinking about...