tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post114934484268432784..comments2023-10-24T04:29:23.693-06:00Comments on Atheist Ethicist: The Most Evil (Legal) ProfessionAlonzo Fyfehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-1149415147402986052006-06-04T03:59:00.000-06:002006-06-04T03:59:00.000-06:00When watching a commercial we know its all exadura...When watching a commercial we know its all exadurated so we act accordingly. <BR/><BR/>But when a commercial is served to us as a report, especially a scientific one, which is supposed to be absolutely accurate, than we act as if exadurations are the accurate truth. <BR/>So our personal profit vs. loss equation gets thrown completely out of whack. <BR/><BR/>That's how our desires are thwarted and that's why covert commercials are bad.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-1149398713528097172006-06-03T23:25:00.000-06:002006-06-03T23:25:00.000-06:00I don't believe press releases are inherently wron...I don't believe press releases are inherently wrong. The problem is one of disclosure. If you're reading or watching an advertisement you need to know that. And absolutely under no circumstances should the government VNRs be presented as if they are indenpendent news report. <BR/><BR/>Its a matter of transparency. If you're writing an article about how great Ford trucks are, and Ford trucks paid you 50,000 dollars, you need to disclose you that were paid 50,000 dollars.<BR/><BR/>The CMD that spurred me to ask Alonzo's views on this subject indicates that there are vast amounts of covert propaganda in our culture that we are largely unaware of.<BR/><BR/>A democracy can not work if people do not know the truth. Each one of the fake news reports represents a tiny assault on the truth. And when they aggregate, they represent an assault on the concept of democracy.Hume's Ghosthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13551684109760430351noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-1149382322335969622006-06-03T18:52:00.000-06:002006-06-03T18:52:00.000-06:00Joe OttenI have the experience of actually having ...<B>Joe Otten</B><BR/><BR/>I have the experience of actually having taught courses in the philosophy of law that included sections on legal ethics. There are standards for lawyers (including criminal defense attorneys) which can result in disbarment if those standards are violated.<BR/><BR/>Granted, a lot of attorneys violate those rules, or bend them to the point of breaking. Furthermore, I do not agree with some of the rules and would not call them 'ethical'. However, having said this, a standard of conduct that can result in disbarment if they are broken is a significant improvement over what we get from these "masters of the science of deceipt."<BR/><BR/><B>Martin</B><BR/><BR/>I do not imply that there is a requirement to judge, I am talking about simple acts of deception. If the focus group asked you what type of discount card you wanted, and you gave an honest answer, then the woman who shouted at you was in the wrong. She wanted you to lie for the benefit of others. She was angry at you for telling the truth. She was in the wrong, not you.<BR/><BR/>On the other hand, your vegan friend who selectively uses data, I would say, is being dishonest if (1) she makes no attempt to verify the truth of the statements she uses, or (2) she has reason to believe that they are not true but uses them anyway.<BR/><BR/>This does not mean that she needs to include everything written on "both sides" of an issue. There is a difference between this requirement (which I have condemned in previous posts), and the requirement that what one does include needs to be verified as true and left out if it cannot be verified.<BR/><BR/>I do not hold that one needs to present both sides of an issue. I do hold that, when presenting one side of an issue, one needs to take care to avoid making false statements.<BR/><BR/>If you would like to put it that way, this is the "middle ground" that I advocate. You don't have to be "fair", but you do have to be honest.Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-1149369821264522672006-06-03T15:23:00.000-06:002006-06-03T15:23:00.000-06:00We have a friend who is vegan for moral reasons. B...We have a friend who is vegan for moral reasons. But if she finds a report on the harmful effects of meat, she's all too happy to include those reports in her advocacy. If another report says that meat isn't so bad, she doesn't objectively include that in her conversations, because she is advocating a cause. <BR/><BR/>Likewise, when I was asked to participate in a focus group for a movie discount card, I wanted the card to only apply to admission, not concessions, because I never bought concessions and I preferred a card that worked for me. Another woman in the group shouted at me for not being fair to those who DID spend money on concessions. But my role was to advocate what _I_ wanted, and not to be a "fair" judge. <BR/><BR/>Sometimes one has to be an advocate and not a judge. Were my vegan friend and my frugal self being immoral for taking a side? In both cases, *maybe* a middle ground would be better for more people. But in both cases, we were speaking for causes we believed in strongly. What say you to that sort of thinking?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-1149365715149014712006-06-03T14:15:00.000-06:002006-06-03T14:15:00.000-06:00Alonzo, a few years ago I would have entirely agre...Alonzo, a few years ago I would have entirely agreed with you, and I would write things like <A HREF="http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/brunel/A1076834" REL="nofollow">this</A>.<BR/><BR/>Today I am not so sure. You could make similar arguments about criminal defence attorneys. They put forward partial arguments, sometimes lie, usually defending someone who deserves to be punished. But they are a necessary part of an imperfect but good system. A less confrontational justice system might work as well or better, who knows, but the same system as we have, just without defence attorneys would work much worse.<BR/><BR/>Of course there are extreme examples that are worthy of condemnation and punishment, but the work of the typical defence attorney is not.<BR/><BR/>And similarly marketing. It certainly manipulates people's desires, when successful. But does it tend to thwart desires generally rather than fulfil them? I guess the desires it creates are often thwarted, and often fulfilled. How does that get weighed? <BR/><BR/>And is marketing a necessary part of something bigger - in which case it might be unfair to regard marketers with contempt? Even then, perhaps it is still right to treat them with contempt, to discourage talent from being applied that way, and to encourage people to take care what they believe.Joe Ottenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18380362092159905533noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-1149363017082302052006-06-03T13:30:00.000-06:002006-06-03T13:30:00.000-06:00DerekYou are absolutely correct. Somewhere in edit...<B>Derek</B><BR/><BR/>You are absolutely correct. <BR/><BR/>Somewhere in editing this one of the paragraphs that I had written apparently got deleted. I do not approve of making blanket statements of whole groups, so I had a paragraph that specifically stated that I am talking about an overall disposition of a group that clearly has individual exceptions.<BR/><BR/>However, the type of argument you provide would not counter the claims that I made even in the original statement. To say that "this is the most evil profession" is not to say that they do no good; only that the ratio of evil to good is particularly low. Individual examples of "good" press releases would not refute such a claim.<BR/><BR/>What would refute it is evidence of an effort of those who are a part of this community to police the actions of those within the community and to censure in some way those who are engage in deceptive practices.<BR/><BR/>There are groups like this, such as factcheck.org and prwatch.org. However, these are outsiders looking in on the industry, rather than insiders making any type of attempt to encourage a devotion to truth and rejection of deception among their own members.<BR/><BR/>As I said, your basic charge, against my article as originally written, was accurate. It would be false and prejudicial to say that everybody involved in the Public Relations industry has no moral conscience. I deny that this is the case.<BR/><BR/>I just wish that the industry as a whole was one where those with a conscience were powerful enough to police those of their members who do not.Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.com