I do not think you can make the assumption that just becuase a girl has a fit body she has an eating disorder. By far women who are in shape, workout eat right etc.gdbaby said:
That's what I was going for. Trust me after 6 years of anthro research on the topic, I would never make such an assumption. I have a fit body and eat Double Stuff Oreos like they are going out of style. Speaking of eating disroders....Apparition said:
That would be my dilemma too. The money could really help out my family and at the same time, it makes me sick to help sell a product that kills people.MoosePilot said:
i think I would put my family first as well. I think whatever decision is made, as long as it is done thoughfully and is well reasoned then it is the best decision you could make given your circumstances at the time.Apparition said:
So here's a question:Apparition said:
This one is easy. It is more ethical to do a crappy job when advertising tabacco.MoosePilot said:So here's a question:
Is it more ethical if you get hired to do your utmost at the job you were hired to do or to do a crappy job, knowing that it might snag one less consumer to an evil product?
How funny. I thought the other way, that since you've accepted money from them, you should do what you signed up to do to the best of your ability. I definitely see both sides, though.Apparition said:
Immediately after college, it would be a harder decision between dong a good job or a crappy job but after over a year in the corporate environment, which I realize is not that much, I noticed that loyalty and integrity are scarce in the workplace.MoosePilot said:
Ha.gdbaby said:
However, simply due to this one statement, I would strongly encourage you to not take the job. It's not that either yours or my viewpoint is right or wrong-- it's that if you feel this strongly about preventing disease and associate the tobacco business with the contribution of disease, you'll end up miserable in spite of the financial compensation.Apparition said:
Yes but that product only kills people who already know (or could be reasonably expected to know) the dangers of smoking. It's not like they are selling cyanide laced Gummi bears or something covert.Apparition said:
Extremely well paying, my ass. The salary for entry level advertising jobs sucks.Apparition said:
It's a management position.FACS said:Extremely well paying, my ass. The salary for entry level advertising jobs sucks.
That's awesome!!!angietron3000 said:I used to be art director for a building industry magazine that occasionally ran editorials that I really disagreed with.. like arguments against the clean water act.. I did my best to pull out the most arrogant/ridiculous statements the authors made into big block quotes in hopes that the readers would see how full of $#!+ they were..
This is a good point, but I would go further and say that product diversity aside, you will face the same dilemma if you want to work in any sort of service based industry, as you will always have clients, patients, etc. who you do not agree with, and who present ethical dilemmas. Taken a step further, assume you are a physician, and the president of the tobacco lobby comes to your office for a medical procedure -- would you reject him as a patient because of his job? Would you do a bad job (botch the surgery) because you are opposed to his views? As a physician, you will administer care to people you do not agree with all the time -- addicts and gang members will flow through any big city ED, you will have patients who work in distasteful industries, shirk their medical bills, stand for distasteful things, beat their spouses, evade taxes. If you are the type who would draw the line at an advertising firm that does work with tobacco (which is a paying client running a totally legal business), I suspect you will have a really hard time with some of the patients to whom you will be asked to administer care to as a med studnet or resident.hoberto said:
Yeah freakin right, I see so many politicians and big wig figures lighting it up that it ain't evern funny. You can't make people take care of themselves or do what is right for their body. As stated in previous posts, people are well aware of the dangers and risks they impose by smoking. Why stop at cigarettes? Alcohol, trans-fat containing foods, and tanning beds are all detrimental to good health. My point is that legal action would only exacerbate the problem as well as put approx. 25% of the U.S. population behind bars... there's food for thoughtApparition said:
It is true that an adult is responsible for choosing whether to smoke or not. But what about a 13-year old? Children are very impressionable and even though tobacco companies aren't supposed to advertise to children they see tobacco ads (flipping through one of their parents magazines for example). Everyone has heard how hard it is to quit once your addicted. Addiction, something no one has mentioned yet. This is precisely why smoking cigarettes is not comparable to eating fastfood or drinking alcohol. Along with mental dependency cigarettes cause severe physical addiction, whereas the other products mentioned only cause mental dependency. Sorry but I really think tobacco companies are pure evil. Come on, they manufacture one of the only products that is meant to be put into your body, but not required to have its ingredients listed ANYWHERE.Asherlauph said:
take it. its peoples fault if bad things happen to them, not yours. in this context, that is. as long as youre not committing fraud its legit. for any bad results you can shift the blame to your superiors. besides, tobacco and alcohol advertising is some of the juiciest advertising around. it would probably be a great experience.Apparition said:
You'd be surprised how many people drive past the gas station which doesn't advertise to one which does (assuming a negligible price diferential) -- it's not an accident that Exxon does so well compared to its peers. As for your analogy to the music industry, there are a few flaws in your argument, I think. The first is that there is no chain of causation between music and violence -- most people seem to be able to listen to gansta rap without committing violent crimes (the same cannot be said for cigarettes and lung cancer). Second, we have the first amendment of the constitution, which guarantees (and perhaps encourages) the right to express unpopular and detrimental viewpoints, partially as a safety valve -- because if issues are out in the open rather than hidden agendas, they tend to be less dangerous and revolutionary (this is the supreme courts view from some time ago). But most importantly, cigarettes are not illegal, violent crimes are. While some have moral issues with cigarettes, these companies have the blessing of the US government, are huge employers and taxpayers, fund lots of medical research, and have diversified to an enormous number of non-tobacco related businesses. To compare employment at an advertising company where perhaps a major account is a legal business you disagree with to the advocacy of commmission of illegal violence is a bit of a stretch. Again -- as a physician you will possibly have to administer care to cigarette company ad execs and gansta rappers, and probably even gangsters themselves. You are drawing an ethical line which may prove unworkable.WhatUpDoc! said:
I wouldn't even have applied for an advertising agency position. Just my own perception, but talk about boring business! Blah.Apparition said:
