Thank You for Smoking: A reflection on what Advertising should be

    I recently got the chance to watch the movie Thank You for Smoking, a movie that I’d recommend you watch (especially considering that this article is not a review and assumes familiarity with the movie). The movie raises interesting questions regarding advertising, free speech, the system of lobbying, investigative journalism, and the morality of it all. I would like to place a particular focus on that morality, as I believe the most can be said about that particular subject, by making two moral arguments: 1) We as people must try to be better than we were yesterday, and 2) We must make that choice to be better willingly. I will elaborate further, but those two arguments are the core philosophy I have in response to this movie.

    
    The question of whether advertisements for various illicit substances should be allowed is indirectly discussed in the movie, and poses the question to us, the viewer. Should these ads be illegal? Should art be changed in order to not include these substances? What about things that are illegal in some states but not in others? The movie largely leaves it to the viewer to answer, and my answer is this: Adults must be given the opportunity to make their own choices, whether they become mistakes or triumphs. I would argue that it’s in everyone’s self interest to better themselves, to let go of their vices, to try at very least. But that choice, to be better and to better oneself has to be a choice. It cannot be forced on anyone, no matter how good for them it is. As such, I would stand against anyone who said that companies shouldn’t even be able to advertise these kinds of products at all.

    My belief of betterment goes both ways, however, and I would say that companies who sell these things BUT lie about the potential negative consequences, namely addictions, health risks, and other problems should absolutely be punished or restricted from doing so. I believe that companies have moral obligations to the market they operate in, and that lack of responsibility should disallow them from participating in that market. If an adult purchases substances and they know that they are harmful, that is their choice. In terms of changes made to artwork, there is no ethical framework that justifies censorship of artwork that doesn’t involve arbitrary decisions by the powers that be, so I will never entertain an argument to censor art for moral’s sake. At most, a warning provided beforehand about how the art contains harmful/explicit/disturbing elements can be reasonably required.

    I would also say that personally, I don’t think I could or would ever take a job like Nick’s. If it wasn’t already clear from the writing, my moral principles are something I hold in very high regard. Compromising them for something as trivial as a job is something I just don’t think I could bring myself to do. If I really wanted to, there are plenty of well paying industries that I could go into to pay the bills. Since I’m not limited, I feel comfortable not compromising. If, say, I was limited, I’m not sure what my answer would be. On the one hand, I obviously would like to keep living, and the modern world doesn’t seem to have much in the way of doing that without money. On the other hand, participating in an industry selling America poison and lying about it is something that would eat at me for all my days. I ultimately think I still wouldn’t bring myself to take the job, when push comes to shove, I’m a creative guy, who knows how to leverage the collective knowledge of the internet. I’m sure I could make something work.