I think that is surprising for a philosophy that is generally anti-elitist to be elitist with regards to this question. That you disagree with the people who choose, of their own free will, to shop at McDonald's, watch Reality TV, and so on, does not prove that they are wrong and you are right. People have different tastes and the popularity of various products is a reflection of that. It is also important not to forget that even though McDonald's is by far more popular, in almost every American city you can easily find as many types of cuisine as your heart desires from sushi bars, to Indian restaurants, to Thai food, and authentic Italian.
I agree that the advertisements in Ad Age, etc. are disgusting, but I also think going to the bathroom can be disgusting. I don't see why just because something is disgusting means it is wrong, evil, etc. (Also note that I think those advertisers are over estimating their worth.)
You disagree that all trade is mutually beneficial. I am curious. If person A offers person B product X for Y dollars, and person B accepts product X for Y dollars, then in what circumstances is A, or B, or both worse off? I would suggest that there are no such circumstances because if A would be worse off from the trade then she would would not make it and if B would be worse off than he would not make it. What is it that I am missing?
I don't think they are wrong, just misled. To make decisions that are unhealthy for you, such as smoking a pack a day or eating a greasy burger every night, means there is a disconnect. I live in New York City, I can eat any form of food I want. But when I go on road trips, as a vegetarian, I struggle. Ever been to Effingham, IL? It's full of chain fast food joints, unhealthy people, and nothing else. And this isn't a unique case, I just chose it because it made quite an impact on one Greyhound trip.
Along with disgusting (but not because), I find it immoral and harmful to individuality to lump together people and serve them up on a platter.
If people were rational algebraic values, then both would profit. But people are not rational. I know I sure am not. If someone buys and smokes a pack a day, they are gaining cigarrettes and cancer, while Phillip Morris gets money. Or look at gambling. People lose everything for hope. They buy a hope from billionaires and it lasts a second. Gambling is one of many proofs of humanity's irrationality.
Despite your struggling on road trips, we notice that you have not made a martyr of yourself and/or somehow survived.
I would agree that it would be immoral and harmful if people were actually lumped together and served whether as food or as slaves, but to claim that you could do such a thing is just stupid, not immoral.
I disagree that you have the ability to judge the rationality of any actions other than your own. People do things for many reasons, they may smoke because they enjoy the flavour, the drug, or the image they create. In this way a cigarette is a like a piece of candy, a bottle of beer, and a new shirt. PM does not need to know why it is desirable to their customers, but they are assured that it is due to the free will involved in the purchases. Similarly for all other purchases. Some people do not value extreme old age and health as much as you, so they are more inclined to buy hamburgers. Others, who gamble, are interested in the entertainment value of the action. Gambling is not much different from other escapist pursuits -- I can imagine someone claiming that watching a movie is not beneficial because it is not sustenance (actually it takes time and thus energy!) and only offers the viewer a chance to experience an escapist hope of a better/different life to the profit of a millionaire.
I remain unconvinced of your argument based on its logic and of your ability to know what others do not (even though you yourself claim that you are irrational.) I am willing to listen to any argument as long as you are willing to write it, and if I am being difficult and pedantic, please let me know, and I will remedy myself.
I agree that the advertisements in Ad Age, etc. are disgusting, but I also think going to the bathroom can be disgusting. I don't see why just because something is disgusting means it is wrong, evil, etc. (Also note that I think those advertisers are over estimating their worth.)
You disagree that all trade is mutually beneficial. I am curious. If person A offers person B product X for Y dollars, and person B accepts product X for Y dollars, then in what circumstances is A, or B, or both worse off? I would suggest that there are no such circumstances because if A would be worse off from the trade then she would would not make it and if B would be worse off than he would not make it. What is it that I am missing?
Jé
Reply
Along with disgusting (but not because), I find it immoral and harmful to individuality to lump together people and serve them up on a platter.
If people were rational algebraic values, then both would profit. But people are not rational. I know I sure am not. If someone buys and smokes a pack a day, they are gaining cigarrettes and cancer, while Phillip Morris gets money. Or look at gambling. People lose everything for hope. They buy a hope from billionaires and it lasts a second. Gambling is one of many proofs of humanity's irrationality.
Reply
I would agree that it would be immoral and harmful if people were actually lumped together and served whether as food or as slaves, but to claim that you could do such a thing is just stupid, not immoral.
I disagree that you have the ability to judge the rationality of any actions other than your own. People do things for many reasons, they may smoke because they enjoy the flavour, the drug, or the image they create. In this way a cigarette is a like a piece of candy, a bottle of beer, and a new shirt. PM does not need to know why it is desirable to their customers, but they are assured that it is due to the free will involved in the purchases. Similarly for all other purchases. Some people do not value extreme old age and health as much as you, so they are more inclined to buy hamburgers. Others, who gamble, are interested in the entertainment value of the action. Gambling is not much different from other escapist pursuits -- I can imagine someone claiming that watching a movie is not beneficial because it is not sustenance (actually it takes time and thus energy!) and only offers the viewer a chance to experience an escapist hope of a better/different life to the profit of a millionaire.
I remain unconvinced of your argument based on its logic and of your ability to know what others do not (even though you yourself claim that you are irrational.) I am willing to listen to any argument as long as you are willing to write it, and if I am being difficult and pedantic, please let me know, and I will remedy myself.
Jé
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment