Question

In the passage, the author argues how advertising can work to our benefit. To what extent do you agree with his arguments? Examine the impact of honesty and integrity in the world of advertising.

Imagine that you were a Creative Director of an advertising agency which has been assigned to design an advertisement for a tobacco company. How far would you compromise on honesty and integrity. 

 

        I agree with the author’s statements to a certain extent.  What I disagree with him is that through advertisement, we consumers get information at no extra cost. This is not wholly true as firstly, the information may be false, and that would be lies and false statistics already, and not information as it does not increase our knowledge about anything.  Also, he said that consumers benefit from lower prices due to price-advertising. True, prices may be lower but do consumers benefit? Is this ‘lower’ price low to begin with? Take branded goods such as Adidas and Nike. They rival each other in selling sport apparel and the money they spent on advertisements go up to tens of millions or even hundreds, but do we consumers benefit? Even if the prices are lowered slightly, do we benefit if this price is still high?

 

         Another point that I find contentious is that advertising related to health will provide a storehouse of significant observations on the ways in which the benefits of advertising extend beyond the interests of advertisers to include the interests of the public at large. Firstly, advertisements like to be ambiguous about what they say. More of the effect than the figures are used, such as if a sports drink merely boosts the performance of athletes by 1%, this trivial amount will not be mentioned, but rephrased into a catchy and still correct slogan which perhaps says ‘gives you the cutting edge over fellow competitors’ or ‘feel energised with our sports drink which has been proven to boost your performance during competitions’. Furthermore, I am of the opinion that while the welfare of the public is taken into account, their interests are never, are not, and never will be taken into account substantially. The role of the consumer or buyer is not to stay healthy, but to stay spendthrift, and to buy things that benefit mostly the advertiser.

 

         I do agree with the writer on his point that information sells therefore people will research on more information so that products will sell together with information. Advertising companies require research, so they will employ people to research on these information for them, and people will want to research on this information. Thus, it can be seen that the more products needed, the more information wanted, thus products sell together with information. Also, I agree that advertising also elicits additional information from other sources.

                             Moving on to the world of advertising, honesty and integrity are not of vital importance for some companies as long as nobody knows that they are faking information and still fall into their scam and they are still raking in profits. Of course, there will be other companies that would rather lose profits then lose their customer’s face in them, and will never fake information, as it is not only unjust to the consumer, but could possibly endanger his or her lives. Companies have to get their priorities right: to fake information, keep their fingers crossed, and get as much profit as possible or to ensure that honesty and integrity are maintained, and keep their fingers crossed that they will still make a profit.

               If I were the Creative Director of an advertising agency that has been assigned to design an advertisement for a tobacco company, I will not compromise on honesty and integrity as if I am found out by my consumers to have been providing false or misleading information, this would be disastrous and I might face prosecution charges which is not worth such a risk. Instead of facing ways to falsify information, it would be more beneficial for me to focus on inventing tobacco that provides less health risk through measures such as reducing the nicotine and tar content or inventing more efficient filters, not only will more people buy more product, I will win their trust as my information will have proven to be accurate and useful to them. 

Is Science a Menace to Civilisation?

While I agree whole-heartedly with Text A, it is more correct to say that man’s use of Science is a menace to civilisation. The atrocities of war and weapons of mass destruction were made possible with such developments in Science. Because of man’s misuse of Science, countless innocent lives are lost in bombing raids, were lost in the gassing chambers and atomic bombs in World War II, and will be lost in the future with new advanced chemical, nuclear and biological weapons that have the capacity to annihilate an entire country. Also, the invention of explosives and guns has been misused. Dynamite was invented to help build roads through mountains, but instead, we human beings transformed it into weapons to kill and maim other people or animals. Because of Science, Man built technology-intensive industries, power-consuming appliances and other ‘luxury’ goods such as cars and air-conditioners. Because of this, we humans have selfishly caused the global warming effect, which may soon reach a point of no return, unless we manage to find a way to capture carbon dioxide in the future.
Scientific research has without doubt lowered mortality rates, with life-saving discoveries such as antibiotics, surgeries, transplants or vaccines. Previously, man was nearly defenceless against such potent microorganisms, and could die over a mere cold. True, these inventions are greatly beneficial to mankind. However, with these developments in Science, human beings have turned these weapons which fight viruses and other micro-organisms against ourselves, and because of our negligent use of antibiotics, we have ironically created new strains of resistant super-bugs that have developed resistance against nearly all antibiotics. Furthermore, for each vaccine invented, countless innocent lab animals are sacrificed. Their live bodies are used as tests, and if the experiment fails, they are just cruelly killed without a second thought. How could these inventions be hailed as life-saving, if they take the lives of other creatures?
                 Another example is the Internet, which was considered to be a huge leap for mankind, with it being among the most significant inventions of the 20th century. Sadly, what was meant to convenience the lives of mankind instead has turned into a hazard to its users. Be it viruses, rampant proliferation of pornographic material in the net, paedophiles lurking in the chatroom, or addictive computer games, this great breakthrough in Science which was meant to connect people around the world has ironically achieved the contrary. There are countless cases of people, being addicted to online gaming, have estranged themselves from the people around them. They are more comfortable chatting with faceless acquaintances on the web, than with their own family. These technologies threaten to numb the brains of each new generation, killing social skills and the art of communication over time.
                 Of great concern to me, is also the menace that Science presents to moral ethics. Recently, even the United States has instead of opposing stem cells research has decided to fund it. Are we trying to realise the horrors presented to us in Huxley’s ‘Brave new world’. What is next then? Are we going to let parents programme what they want their child to be then? Furthermore, two of the world’s most destructive ideologies in the 20th century-Communism and Nazism were both inspired by Science. Science can thus be seen to in some cases, violate moral ethics and can be detrimental to society.
                     We must also rethink our perceptions of life with science and life without science. Is life without our luxuries bleak and dull? Will we die without our cars or computers? Can its benefits ever outweigh its heavy costs? Of course, while science is argued to be just like religion or philosophy, these two cannot ever be as destructive as science, because they are abstract. I personally, as a Christian, also find Science the major stumbling block in people accepting Christianity. Be it through Darwin’s theory of evolution, or the Big Bang theory which had a one in one with 81 zeroes behind chance of happening, some people choose to believe in Science to explain everything, as it is tangible and concrete, unlike religion. Worse still, Science, or man’s use of Science could be worse than just a menace to civilisation, if science is used to substitute religion in people’s lives.
                             In conclusion, there is little doubt that Science is indeed a menace to civilisation and Man himself.

Explain the nature of pornography and give your reasons to why we should/should not exercise any form of censorship in this area.

In my interpretation, pornography is content that morally degrades man’s opinion of women, as its male-centred content creates the false impression of women’s sole purpose being to be sex slaves for man, and to be treated as sex toys, and worse of all, that they actually enjoy being raped or subjected to sexual abuse. While human rights activists and many other people are actively pushing for equal rights for both men and women, pornography is quite detrimental to this noble effort as it conveys the impression that women are meant to be subservient to man, or that women are ‘whores’. Either way, pornography is derogative towards women, and thus should definitely be censored if the image of women is to be preserved and respected.

 

The foundation of the pornography industry is based on the lustful fantasies, poor self-control and the horrible sexual tastes of males. If the foundation of the drug industry is based on addiction to drugs, and poor self-control, the pornography industry is also fuelling a sinful addiction, and a stumbling block to many men, causing them to be caught up in their fantasies.  The attitudes and behaviour that pornography supports is very unhealthy. Furthermore, pornography brings about lustful thoughts and feelings in man, and is unaccompanied by the many other aspects to sex such as affection, long-lasting relationships and responsibility. This money-driven industry is just like the drug industry, where people actively support and industry that is extremely unhealthy and can ruin people’s lives and degrade the image of some.

 

Definitely, there is a counter-argument that pornography is just a mere expression of sexuality, thus there is nothing wrong with it. Some people say that pornography is a reflection of sexual fantasies and promotes sexual experimentation. Also, it is a substitute for sex as not everybody will get to experience sex in their life, so there is no wrong in using this visual experience to substitute sexual experiences. To me, this argument is terribly flawed as if one wants an expression of sexuality, then he can look at nude art, which is not pornography. Nude art tries to convey the beauty of the human body, while pornography just conveys the notion that women are subservient to men. If one’s real purpose in reading pornographic material is to appreciate sexuality, then it means that he has a terribly warped interpretation of those degrading images.

 

 Furthermore, the very fact that pornography reflects sexual fantasies and promotes sexual experimentation is wrong enough. Sexual fantasies are brought about by lust, and lust is one of the seven cardinal sins, so how a reflection of sexual fantasies became a plus point is a mystery to me. As for promotion of sexual experimentation, does that mean that sexual experimentation itself is good? Sexual experimentation can mean trying out other forms of sex, or treating women as sex toys. It is too ambiguous, and is hard to interpret. The argument that pornography is a substitute for sex for people who may be too shy, ugly or physically disabled is not very convincing either. If a shy young man spends time flipping through pornographic magazines instead of trying to ask a girl out, or if a ugly woman is convinced that all ugly women will never get married and resorts to spending the rest of her life reading pornographic material, how is this right? They should not be willing to settle for something less, much less degrade themselves to read such material.

 

In conclusion, pornography should be censored as it degrades the image of women and the respect of men towards them, encourages lust and is in no ways beneficial to anyone.