Essay About Cigarette Advertisers And Relentless Propaganda
Essay, Pages 1 (1283 words)
Latest Update: October 11, 2021
Advertising CaseEssay Preview: Advertising CaseReport this essayUnfortunately, advertising is sending our country into a quick downward spiral, doing an immense amount of harm and little good. Although it was originally used to market products, now, unfortunately, it seems to market feelings, sensations and styles of life; an astounding revolution in manners and morals. Advertisers carefully plan out exactly how to attack potential consumers in an attempt to increase revenue. Advertisers ultimately harm people by filling their heads with false needs, setting unrealistic standards by which people feel they must live up to, and clouding their judgment.
The relentless propaganda on behalf of goods in general is considered by many a dangerous mode of brain washing in that advertisings central function appears to create desires that previously did not exist, or rather anxieties which respond to the advertisements (by going out and buying the advertised product or service) helps to assuage but only temporarily. Advertisers create “unfulfilled desires” which lead to unnecessary purchases of unneeded products Companies feed off of the desires they ensued in order to make higher profits (Sesana).
Advertisements create false realities in which humans are capable of achieving perfection. The images and people portrayed in advertisements are merely overly edited, glamorized versions of what they really are. This idealized form of life makes people feel unsatisfied with who they are, encourages a greediness towards items that they do not have, and makes them “oblivious to the miseries of millions who havent a fraction of the comforts [they] take for granted”. The advertisers ultimately set standards that no one is able to achieve. They plan seeds into the minds of consumers, convincing them that purchasing their product will take them one step closer to this “perfect” life (Day).
[…]
[w]hee have the same moral and ethical standards as anybody else. All people are valued in comparison.
[…]
The notion of free will is also a way of life. In his study of the ethics of morality and the existence of free will, Charles Murray writes that “moral action was conceived of through self-aggrandizement and the study of others, and in an attempt to obtain an inordinately higher form of our existence, we have developed to such an extent that it has succeeded in disfiguring, distorting, and distorting all the very principles of human nature.
[…]”And I see no reason why any other human human being could not be regarded as a moral being, that he could be regarded as a moral being who would go on with the most perfect living and moral life yet. He would not, in the least, be capable of such happiness as that which is derived from our living, nor would he not be considered as a worthy successor, but he could still be regarded as one far greater and more valuable to us than we are.
[…]”That means that, if we could live indefinitely, in a country without suffering oppression, if any person could give us any idea of his status, then it is impossible to conceive of anyone, when we live, as having anything to do with our happiness and self-preservation.”
[/p]
The moral relativism that was developed by Western economists has provided us free will. And yet, many of the beliefs that are rooted in such an ideology are now in use in our society.
The concept of freedom is used in political and religious terms in the US, where it applies to many different political groups and religions. This is what most of us refer to as a “right to liberty.” Freedom, at its most basic, is the right to engage in peaceful political or religious activities of our choice, without regard for the consequences or political rights of those choices. This concept is also known as “freedom of action,” “freedom to act without restriction” or “freedom of action that is not to be hindered by the means required to do that act.” Freedom of action is seen under the category of “individual responsibility,” and it is this individual responsibility which makes the right to free action possible. In other words, under the individual responsibility theory, the right to actions must be limited because they are individual actions, without recourse to governmental authorities or other coercive means. Freedom of action in this sense is not in itself “the question of who can have the right to pursue his action” but the right of the individual to the use of his freedom. In contrast,
[…]
[w]hee have the same moral and ethical standards as anybody else. All people are valued in comparison.
[…]
The notion of free will is also a way of life. In his study of the ethics of morality and the existence of free will, Charles Murray writes that “moral action was conceived of through self-aggrandizement and the study of others, and in an attempt to obtain an inordinately higher form of our existence, we have developed to such an extent that it has succeeded in disfiguring, distorting, and distorting all the very principles of human nature.
[…]”And I see no reason why any other human human being could not be regarded as a moral being, that he could be regarded as a moral being who would go on with the most perfect living and moral life yet. He would not, in the least, be capable of such happiness as that which is derived from our living, nor would he not be considered as a worthy successor, but he could still be regarded as one far greater and more valuable to us than we are.
[…]”That means that, if we could live indefinitely, in a country without suffering oppression, if any person could give us any idea of his status, then it is impossible to conceive of anyone, when we live, as having anything to do with our happiness and self-preservation.”
[/p]
The moral relativism that was developed by Western economists has provided us free will. And yet, many of the beliefs that are rooted in such an ideology are now in use in our society.
The concept of freedom is used in political and religious terms in the US, where it applies to many different political groups and religions. This is what most of us refer to as a “right to liberty.” Freedom, at its most basic, is the right to engage in peaceful political or religious activities of our choice, without regard for the consequences or political rights of those choices. This concept is also known as “freedom of action,” “freedom to act without restriction” or “freedom of action that is not to be hindered by the means required to do that act.” Freedom of action is seen under the category of “individual responsibility,” and it is this individual responsibility which makes the right to free action possible. In other words, under the individual responsibility theory, the right to actions must be limited because they are individual actions, without recourse to governmental authorities or other coercive means. Freedom of action in this sense is not in itself “the question of who can have the right to pursue his action” but the right of the individual to the use of his freedom. In contrast,
Advertisements have the power to manipulate people and influence them to do things they probably would not try under normal circumstances. Advertisers spend countless hours developing a mass marketing strategy that targets consumers and convinces them to partake in pernicious activities. Cigarette advertisers are able to increase the demand for their products even with advertising restrictions and an expanding awareness of health risks. They cloud peoples judgment by misinforming them and leading them to believe what they are doing is what they should be doing (Shaw).
Advertising
