Ethical Dishonesty

Michael Sabetta

31 Oct. 2011

RD3

Ethical Dishonesty

Good evening, my fellow students. Today, I have come here to talk to you about the concept of honesty. While most of you are accustomed to hearing that honesty is always the best policy, I prefer to take a more nuanced approach. There is no doubt that honesty can be an important factor in building long-term personal and working relationships. However, the efficacy of honesty does have its limits. [THESIS] Through the many experiences that life has sought fit to offer me, I have come to the conclusion that honesty, in certain instances, can actually do a great deal of damage to one’s relationships, and as surprising as it may sound, the withholding or bending of the truth can often prove to be the wisest course of action. [THESIS]

I can see from the shocked look on your faces that the subject of my speech is probably not what you were expecting. But please, before you start hurling rotten tomatoes, hear me out. The advice that I will impart to you this evening, will undoubtedly prove its worth, as you embark on your careers and as you enter into personal relationships, many of which will last an entire lifetime.

As I was reading some of the online posts by my fellow English class students, there was one in particular that brought back some painful memories. It was written by Carmen Lee, and had to do with personal relationships and lying by omission. Carmen stated that “…it is not acceptable to remain silent, if you have the answer in mind” (Lee) While this statement makes a lot of sense, in reality, it is fraught with peril. As proof of the inherent risk involved in following this advice, I would like to share with you a personal experience that I had, many years ago.

I was dating a girl, and things were getting pretty serious. One day, as we were discussing the amazing future that we would share, she asked me to be honest and tell her something that she could change about herself, to make me love her even more. I asked her if she was sure about this, because I did not want to say anything that might damage our relationship. She told me not to worry, and to be completely honest. I hesitated, pondering the consequences of what I was about to say. After gathering my courage, I took a deep breath, looked deep into her eyes and uttered these fateful words, “Sweetheart, you’re beautiful, but I would really like it if you would lose ten pounds.”

She looked at me with disbelief. Her face became contorted as her eyes filled with tears. Her lips moved, but she was unable to speak. She began sobbing hysterically, yet at the same time she was somehow able to scream over and over again, “I never want to see you again! I never want to see you again!” Needless to say, that was the end of a very promising relationship.

The abrupt and unhappy ending to this love story should serve as a warning to those who believe that complete and absolute honesty always triumphs. If I had been less than completely honest, and withheld the truth, something like: “Sweetheart, you’re beautiful, and there isn’t a thing about you that I would want to change”, then we would probably be happily married, right now, with two or three kids.

One of the readings from my English class had a memorable line in it that does a great job of explaining when it is OK to lie. I would urge all of you to read this online article. The title is All Lies are Not Created Equal: Professors, Students Take an Honest Look at Lying. It was written by Patrice Taddonio, and the line she quotes is from a biology professor named Sheldon Krimsky. He states that “Lying is sometimes acceptable, excusable, and even desirable, especially when it involves human feelings” (Taddonio).

That one line offers a great summary of the message that I’m trying to get across here this evening. It answers the question of how to best apply honesty or, when required, dishonesty to our personal relationships. So far, I think most of you would agree that the points I have sought to make are fairly noncontroversial. Well, all that is about to change.

I would now like to discuss the consequences of complete honesty in our working relationships. Believe it or not, there are instances when untruthfulness can prove beneficial in these types of relationships, just as it can in our personal lives.

Once again, I would like to recommend to you an excellent online source. This one delves deep into the matters of honesty and ethics. It is from the Josephson Institute, and the name of the article is Making Ethical Decisions: The Six Pillars of Character. If I could share one quote with you that struck me as particularly profound and particularly relevant to the discussion we are having, this would be it: “Not all lies are unethical, even though all lies are dishonest” (Josephson). This phrase could be further simplified by simply stating that “Dishonesty is not necessarily unethical.”

The examples given in the article are a policeman who lies in the course of an undercover operation or one who lies to a terrorist, in order to save lives. I would take these examples one step further and say that anytime you lie to promote the greater good, dishonesty can be considered ethical. This brings up an important question that must be considered: Just what is the greater good? Say, for example, someone misrepresents their qualifications on a job application, in order to get the job and be able to provide for his or her family. I would consider that to be the greater good. When you put both sides of that example on a scale to determine which has greater weight or value, there is no question, at least in my mind, that providing for one’s family trumps misrepresentation on a job application.

Let’s look at another example. You got the job and you family is well-provided for. Now, you are seeking a promotion so that you can move your family to a nicer area, and your kids can attend better schools. In applying for the promotion, once again, you misrepresent yourself, and rationalize your dishonesty by convincing yourself that it is for the greater good. This gets in to some dicey territory. In this instance, the greater good is not so clear cut. It becomes a subjective decision, and each individual needs to fully consider the ethics that are involved.

I know that I have gone a little long here, and I can see you all starting to fidget, so let me wrap this up with some simple advice. Graduating from college is a big step forward. You are going to be faced with some difficult decisions in the years ahead. In making these decisions, ethics and honesty need to be considered at every point along the way. Follow your judgment, and always use the greater good as a guidepost.

Works Cited

Lee, Carmen. “Lying via Omission/Sportsmanship.” Online Posting. 20 Oct. 2011. Laulima Discussion. 31 Oct. 2011. [https://laulima.hawaii.edu/portal/site/KAP.XLSENG215js.201210/page/70638c63-3d48-4275-828a-7e37acace01e]

Josephson, Michael. “Making Ethical Decisions: The Six Pillars of Character.” Josephson Institute. Josephson Institute, 2011. Web. 31 Oct. 2011. [http://josephsoninstitute.org/MED/MED-2sixpillars.html]

Taddonio, Patrice. "All Lies Are Not Created Equal: Professors, Students Take an Honest Look at Lying." Tuftsdaily.com [Tufts University] 19 Mar. 2004. We. 31 Oct. 2011. [http://www.tuftsdaily.com/articleDisplay.jsp?a_id=3615]

FD2 / The Legacy of Advertisements

Michael Sabetta

11 Oct. 2011

FD2

The Legacy of Advertisements: Irrational Purchases, Consumer Debt, Personal Bankruptcy

Advertisements have been a part of human life since time immemorial. Long before the advent of television, radio, or even newspaper, advertisements have sought to influence the way that people utilize their resources. After thousands of years of trial and error, manufacturers and service providers have succeeded in honing their persuasive skills to a fine point. In light of this, I believe that the time has come to examine the overall effect that advertising is having on our society and the lives of our fellow human beings. The primary goal of the majority of advertisements has been to increase consumer spending on certain products or services. Advertisers have been very successful in achieving this goal, to the point where many consumers place their desire for these products and services ahead of making responsible financial decisions. [THESIS] When one considers the irrational purchases, the high levels of consumer debt, and the correspondingly high levels of personal bankruptcy that are so prevalent in this day and age, it becomes clear that advertising has been extremely detrimental, not only on people’s lives, but also on our nation’s economy. [THESIS].   

I had always considered advertising to be fairly modern practice. However, after doing a little research, I was amazed to discover that advertisements have been traced all the way back to 4,000 B.C. According to an online article titled History of Advertising, “Wall paintings depicting sales and commerce messages…[were] the very first advertisements of humankind” (Anderson). It would be interesting to know what percentage of those sales were for irrational or unnecessary purchases. Logic would seem to dictate that people living thousands of years ago did not have such modern marvels as The Clapper, Chia Pet, or the Slice-O-Matic enticing them to part with their hard-earned money. While it is possible that there existed similarly worthless items available to consumers, the half-hour infomercial was still several millennia away, and I would venture to say that most people probably limited their purchases to the basic necessities of life. 

Convincing consumers that the necessities of life include things that are not really necessary has become job number one for many advertisers. They do this by employing a variety of logical fallacies to persuade the unsuspecting consumer that he or she simply cannot get by without making the purchase. A prime example of this was highlighted in a post by Lisa Rodrigues, one of my English 215 classmates. She discusses a Sony commercial that tries to get people to purchase a big screen TV, by “Using a professional athlete to catch the attention of the sports fanatic and capture the younger generation by using Justin Timberlake” (Rodrigues).  The commercial begins with a young family in an electronics store, trying to decide which TV to buy. “I don’t know, these all look the same” says the father. The wall opens, and Peyton Manning is shown, playing ping pong with Justin Timberlake. While not missing a beat, they tell the man that the Sony Bravia is better than the other TVs. The logical fallacy here would be the faulty use of authority. While I have no doubt that both of these individuals are highly authoritative in their respective realms, neither one of them has the expertise or authority to tell the shopper why he should purchase this particular television. Notwithstanding that fact, their appeal to certain segments of the population, based on their football and entertainment fame, will probably be sufficient to sell a good number of televisions. English 215 student, Robert Gornichec, did a good job summing up the reason why advertisers tend to not be bothered about finding an actual authority on the product they are pitching, “…the fact that the major spokespersons for this product are major television stars gives the impression that this is a worthy product” (Gornichec). 

Another logical fallacy frequently utilized by unscrupulous advertisers is called post hoc, ergo propter hoc. This refers to a cause and effect relationship that can be deemed questionable, at best. Lisa Ancog, in her Laulima post, offers a great example of the use of this logical fallacy in a commercial for Axe body spray. The ad shows thousands of bikini-clad women determinedly running through the forest, while pushing and shoving each other out of the way. Finally, they converge on one man, alone on the beach, who is profusely spraying himself with Axe body spray. The message is that if you use Axe, women will be fighting to get their hands on your body. While this image probably resonates with millions of sex-deprived men everywhere, a little common sense should reveal the fallacy of this advertisement.  

   

Alas, common sense seems to be in short supply, when it comes to consumer reactions to cleverly designed advertisements. Compounding the problem is the abundance of easy credit available to many consumers. When coercive advertisements are combined with readily available credit, the resulting concoction should probably be accompanied by a warning label. Indeed, this powerful combination has gotten many consumers so deep in debt that it becomes impossible to dig their way out. According to the Consumer Federation of America, in 2008, Americans held $850 billion in credit card debt. That works out to an average of $8,568 per card-holding household (Dickler). As consumer debt grows, so do the profits of the credit card companies. A vicious circle is created, wherein the credit card companies invest a portion of their profits into more advertising, which in turn creates more consumer debt and makes more money for the companies to invest in more advertising.

The effectiveness of this advertising cannot be denied. The bandwagon approach seems to be one of the favored methods employed by the credit card companies. The average consumer sees ads with smiling, carefree people spending away, while suffering no ill effects. They believe that everybody else is using credit cards to improve their lifestyle, so why not join in the fun and jump on the bandwagon. 

The major credit card companies, with their ubiquitous advertisements, have to be given much of the blame for the financial predicament engulfing many people today. However, poor financial health is not the only negative effect caused by credit card overuse. Worries over money can directly affect one’s physical and mental health as well. Depression, nervous breakdowns, and even suicide can often be traced back to financial stress. For those who feel that suicide might be a little too drastic, oftentimes, the best way out is bankruptcy. 

Only after all other options have been tried, do most people consider bankruptcy.  It is, however, far from painless. In addition to possibly causing an individual humiliation and difficulties for years afterward, it can also have a negative effect on our nation’s overall economy. Either creditors are forced to assume the loss, which can cause them to raise their prices, or the federal government assumes the loss, which may result in tax increases or a ballooning of our national debt. 

For some, the connection between a seemingly harmless TV commercial and an increase in bankruptcies might be a little hard to fathom. However, I believe that when the manipulative and coercive effects of credit card advertisements are thrown into the equation, the correlation becomes clearly visible. There exists a chain reaction, that one must consider: (a)the unsuspecting consumer gets duped into making purchases based on advertisements rife with logical fallacies, (b)the credit card companies use similar ads to encourage and facilitate these purchases, (c)the consumer debt level becomes unsustainable, (d)bankruptcy is seen as the easiest way out of the predicament, and (e)bad things happen. 

There are two simple steps that a person can take to avoid the scenario outlined in the preceding paragraph. The most obvious would be to take all advertisements with a grain of salt, and understand that the advertiser’s goal is not to better your life, but to coerce and to manipulate. The second step is to make wise financial decisions, based on your personal or family budget, and not based on the happy-go-lucky spending habits portrayed in advertisements.   

It takes a great deal of will power to just say no to the instant gratification that can be found in irrational purchasing and mindless consuming. Resisting the lure of easy credit requires constant vigilance and, sometimes, x-ray vision. One must endeavor to see through the shiny veneer of slick advertisements, and realize that the made for TV world of carefree hyper-spending and credit without limits is actually a fantasyland. Knowledge is the greatest weapon against these modern-day snake oil salesmen; Knowledge of the damage that advertising has done to our friends, our neighbors, and our country.   

Works Cited

Ancog, Lisa. “Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc – Axe Billion Women Commercial.” Online Posting. 30 Sep. 2011. Laulima Discussion. 3 Oct. 2011. [https://laulima.hawaii.edu/portal/site/KAP.XLSENG215js.201210/page/70638c63-3d48-4275-828a-7e37acace01e]

Anderson, Shirley. History of Advertising. Hub Pages, 2011. Web. 2 Oct. 2011. [http://shirleyanderson.hubpages.com/hub/-Advertising]

Dickler, Jessica. “Getting Squeezed by Credit Card Companies.” CNN Money. Cable News Network, 27 May 2008. Web. 3 Oct. 2011.     [http://money.cnn.com/2008/05/23/pf/credit_debt/index.htm?cnn=yes]
     

Gornichec, Robert. “Meaningful Beauty-Faulty Use of Authority-Robert Gornichec.” Online Posting. 29 Sep. 2011. Laulima Discussion. 3 Oct. 2011. [https://laulima.hawaii.edu/portal/site/KAP.XLSENG215js.201210/page/70638c63-3d48-4275-828a-7e37acace01e]

Rodrigues, Lisa. “Faulty Use of Authority.” Online Posting. 30 Sep. 2011. Laulima Discussion. 3 Oct. 2011.   [https://laulima.hawaii.edu/portal/site/KAP.XLSENG215js.201210/page/70638c63-3d48-4275-828a-7e37acace01e]

Log of Completed Activities
__X_ Sep. 19- Intro to Paper #2. Read the Guidelines for Paper #2.
__X_ Sep. 23- Laulima Discussion: Ad Pros and Cons
__X_ Sep. 26- Complete readings for paper #2.
__X_ Sep. 30- Laulima Discussion: Logical Fallacies Exercise
__X_ Oct. 3- Submit RD2 [50 pts]. Review the guidelines.
__X_ Oct. 7- Submit three RD2 evaluations [50 pts]. Review the guidelines.
__X_ Oct. 12- Submit FD2 [125 pts]. Review the guidelines.

The Legacy of Advertisements: Irrational Purchases, Consumer Debt, Personal Bankruptcy

Michael Sabetta

3 Oct. 2011

RD2

The Legacy of Advertisements: Irrational Purchases, Consumer Debt, Personal Bankruptcy

Advertisements have been a part of human life since time immemorial. Long before the advent of television, radio, or even newspaper, advertisements have sought to influence the way that people utilize their resources. After thousands of years of trial and error, manufacturers and service providers have succeeded in honing their persuasive skills to a fine point. In light of this, I believe that the time has come to examine the overall effect that advertising is having on our society and the lives of our fellow human beings. The primary goal of the majority of advertisements has been to increase consumer spending on certain products or services. Advertisers have been very successful in achieving this goal, to the point where many consumers place their desire for these products and services ahead of making responsible financial decisions. [THESIS] When one considers the irrational purchases, the high levels of consumer debt, and the correspondingly high levels of personal bankruptcy that are so prevalent in this day and age, it becomes clear that advertising has had a negative effect on our nation’s economy, and on the lives of the people who live in our great country [THESIS].   

I had always considered advertising to be fairly modern practice. However, after doing a little research, I was amazed to discover that advertisements have been traced all the way back to 4,000 B.C. According to an online article titled History of Advertising, “Wall paintings depicting sales and commerce messages…[were] the very first advertisements of humankind” (Anderson). It would be interesting to know what percentage of those sales were for irrational or unnecessary purchases. Logic would seem to dictate that people living thousands of years ago did not have such modern marvels as The Clapper, Chia Pet, or the Slice-O-Matic enticing them to part with their hard-earned money. While it is possible that there existed similarly worthless items available to consumers, the half-hour infomercial was still several millennia away, and I would venture to say that most people probably limited their purchases to the basic necessities of life. 

Convincing consumers that the necessities of life include things that are not really necessary has become job number one for many advertisers. They do this by employing a variety of logical fallacies to persuade the unsuspecting consumer that he or she simply cannot get by without making the purchase. A prime example of this was highlighted in a post by Lisa Rodrigues, one of my English 215 classmates. She discusses a Sony commercial that tries to get people to purchase a big screen TV, by “Using a professional athlete to catch the attention of the sports fanatic and capture the younger generation by using Justin Timberlake” (Rodrigues).  The commercial begins with a young family in an electronics store, trying to decide which TV to buy. “I don’t know, these all look the same” says the father. The wall opens, and Peyton Manning is shown, playing ping pong with Justin Timberlake. While not missing a beat, they tell the man that the Sony Bravia is better than the other TVs. The logical fallacy here would be the faulty use of authority. While I have no doubt that both of these individuals are highly authoritative in their respective realms, neither one of them has the expertise or authority to tell the shopper why he should purchase this particular television. Notwithstanding that fact, their appeal to certain segments of the population, based on their football and entertainment fame, will probably be sufficient to sell a good number of televisions. English 215 student, Robert Gornichec, did a good job summing up the reason why advertisers tend to not be bothered about finding an actual authority on the product they are pitching, “…the fact that the major spokespersons for this product are major television stars gives the impression that this is a worthy product” (Gornichec). 

Another logical fallacy frequently utilized by unscrupulous advertisers is called post hoc, ergo propter hoc. This refers to a cause and effect relationship that can be deemed questionable, at best. Lisa Ancog, in her Laulima post, offers a great example of the use of this logical fallacy in a commercial for Axe body spray. The ad shows thousands of bikini-clad women determinedly running through the forest, while pushing and shoving each other out of the way. Finally, they converge on one man, alone on the beach, who is profusely spraying himself with Axe body spray. The message is that if you use Axe, women will be fighting to get their hands on your body. While this image probably resonates with millions of sex-deprived men everywhere, a little common sense should reveal the fallacy of this advertisement.   

  

Alas, common sense seems to be in short supply, when it comes to consumer reactions to cleverly designed advertisements. Compounding the problem is the abundance of easy credit available to many consumers. When coercive advertisements are combined with readily available credit, the resulting concoction should probably be accompanied by a warning label. Indeed, this powerful combination has gotten many consumers so deep in debt that it becomes impossible to dig their way out. According to the Consumer Federation of America, in 2008, Americans held $850 billion in credit card debt. That works out to an average of $8,568 per card-holding household (Dickler). As consumer debt grows, so do the profits of the credit card companies. A vicious circle is created, wherein the credit card companies invest a portion of their profits into more advertising, which in turn creates more consumer debt and makes more money for the companies to invest in more advertising.

The effectiveness of this advertising cannot be denied. The bandwagon approach seems to be one of the favored methods employed by the credit card companies. The average consumer sees ads with smiling, carefree people spending away, while suffering no ill effects. They believe that everybody else is using credit cards to improve their lifestyle, so why not join in the fun and jump on the bandwagon.

The major credit card companies, with their ubiquitous advertisements, have to be given much of the blame for the financial predicament engulfing many people today. However, poor financial health is not the only negative effect caused by credit card overuse. Worries over money can directly affect one’s physical and mental health as well. Depression, nervous breakdowns, and even suicide can often be traced back to financial stress. For those who feel that suicide might be too drastic an option, oftentimes, the best way out is bankruptcy. 

Bankruptcy, however, is far from painless. In addition to causing an individual humiliation and difficulties for years afterward, it also has a negative effect on our nation’s overall economy. Either creditors are forced to assume the loss, which can cause them to raise their prices, or the federal government assumes the loss, which may result in tax increases or a ballooning of our national debt. 

For some, the connection between a seemingly harmless TV commercial and an increase in bankruptcies might be a little hard to fathom. However, I believe that when the manipulative and coercive effects of credit card advertisements are thrown into the equation, the correlation becomes clearly visible. There exists a chain reaction, that one must consider: (a)the unsuspecting consumer gets duped into making purchases based on advertisements rife with logical fallacies, (b)the credit card companies use similar ads to encourage and facilitate these purchases, (c)the consumer debt level becomes unsustainable, (d)bankruptcy is seen as the easiest way out of the predicament, and (e)bad things happen. 

There are two simple steps that a person can take to avoid the scenario outlined in the preceding paragraph. The most obvious would be to take all advertisements with a grain of salt, and understand that the advertiser’s goal is not to better your life, but to coerce and to manipulate. The second step is to make wise financial decisions, based on your personal or family budget, and not based on the carefree spending habits portrayed in advertisements.    

Works Cited

Ancog, Lisa. “Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc – Axe Billion Women Commercial.” Online Posting. 30 Sep. 2011. Laulima Discussion. 3 Oct. 2011. [https://laulima.hawaii.edu/portal/site/KAP.XLSENG215js.201210/page/70638c63-3d48-4275-828a-7e37acace01e]

Anderson, Shirley. History of Advertising. Hub Pages, 2011. Web. 2 Oct. 2011. [http://shirleyanderson.hubpages.com/hub/-Advertising]

Dickler, Jessica. “Getting Squeezed by Credit Card Companies.” CNN Money. Cable News Network, 27 May 2008. Web. 3 Oct. 2011.     [http://money.cnn.com/2008/05/23/pf/credit_debt/index.htm?cnn=yes] 

    

Gornichec, Robert. “Meaningful Beauty-Faulty Use of Authority-Robert Gornichec.” Online Posting. 29 Sep. 2011. Laulima Discussion. 3 Oct. 2011. [https://laulima.hawaii.edu/portal/site/KAP.XLSENG215js.201210/page/70638c63-3d48-4275-828a-7e37acace01e]

Rodrigues, Lisa. “Faulty Use of Authority.” Online Posting. 30 Sep. 2011. Laulima Discussion. 3 Oct. 2011.   [https://laulima.hawaii.edu/portal/site/KAP.XLSENG215js.201210/page/70638c63-3d48-4275-828a-7e37acace01e]