I'm sure this is a line of reasoning ad-apologists use all the time but... philosophically, is there really a way we can claim that advertising makes you want things in a way that's
wrong, as opposed to in way that causes enjoyment just like when you normally want things?
Like implicit in this line of reasoning is a bit of a sense that like, there's a "true", base set of desires that we all have that would exist completely independently of any kind of outside influence, and that advertising is bad because it tricks us into addressing other manufactured desires instead of our real, true desires. And that there's something wrong with addressing a manufactured desire instead of a "true" desire? Like, when you address a manufactured desire you don't actually feel the joy/fulfillment you would from fulfilling a "true" desire?
I don't think that's right. I don't think we really have true, "pure" desires. Almost all of our desires are a result of social influence in one way or another. And even to the extent that some desires are less a product of influence than others, I'm not sure satisfying those desires is necessarily better. I've bought things after I saw an ad about them, and they're things I now genuinely enjoy. Why does it matter if that enjoyment is a result of the ad or would have existed either way?
Maybe a much shorter way of saying this:
> In other words, you can make people consume considerably more stuff they don't want by constantly nagging them with ads.
Are you sure ads are "nagging" people as opposed to genuinely changing what they want?
I share the gut sentiment that it feels wrong to be manipulated by ads, but I feel like there needs to be more to this argument. Though I think you can still think advertising is bad in an "arms race" kind of way (if everyone stopped doing it at once we'd possibly not really be any worse off and have all that time/money to spend elsewhere).
Like implicit in this line of reasoning is a bit of a sense that like, there's a "true", base set of desires that we all have that would exist completely independently of any kind of outside influence, and that advertising is bad because it tricks us into addressing other manufactured desires instead of our real, true desires. And that there's something wrong with addressing a manufactured desire instead of a "true" desire? Like, when you address a manufactured desire you don't actually feel the joy/fulfillment you would from fulfilling a "true" desire?
I don't think that's right. I don't think we really have true, "pure" desires. Almost all of our desires are a result of social influence in one way or another. And even to the extent that some desires are less a product of influence than others, I'm not sure satisfying those desires is necessarily better. I've bought things after I saw an ad about them, and they're things I now genuinely enjoy. Why does it matter if that enjoyment is a result of the ad or would have existed either way?
Maybe a much shorter way of saying this:
> In other words, you can make people consume considerably more stuff they don't want by constantly nagging them with ads.
Are you sure ads are "nagging" people as opposed to genuinely changing what they want?
I share the gut sentiment that it feels wrong to be manipulated by ads, but I feel like there needs to be more to this argument. Though I think you can still think advertising is bad in an "arms race" kind of way (if everyone stopped doing it at once we'd possibly not really be any worse off and have all that time/money to spend elsewhere).