Ourania nk.net11/22/05


snip

>...I didn't mention a solid ethical standard (or foundation) in
> China at all, Michael. All I said is that they do indeed *have*
> a solid code of ethics regarding "truth in advertising." How do
> I know? Because they have advertising.

> If they have
> advertising, they have a code of ethics regarding advertising.

That's subtle.

> Ethics -- or a system of evaluating right conduct -- is a
> cultural universal, even in the earliest of civilizations. And
> there is no existing element or behavior in any society that is
> exempt or excluded from its system of evaluation. If an activity
> or conduct is observable, there's a cultural code for determining
> its ethical status. That's a given. Whether we as outsiders can
> even perceive or grok that code (much less agree with it) is of
> course irrelevant.

Your analysis is sophisticated, to say the least. But, the discussion would
be a lot more interesting if you would share what you know or think about
the specific ethical standards in question, the idea of ethical standard
being inherent.
>
>>> But in any case, the labeling and advertising constraints in the
>>> U.S. are the results of legislation and most definitely not the
>>> result of ethics.
>>
>> Which *should* somehow correlate to or reflect the ethics of the community
>> at large.
>
> I don't think we can make that assumption any more. Our
> legislative system is now so convoluted, so heavily influenced by
> purely financial considerations, so far removed from anything
> resembling an authentically democratic process, and our citizenry
> is so unsophisticated and uneducated and easily manipulated by
> blipverts, that I think it's more accurate to say that our laws
> reflect the power struggles among various global
> military-industrial lobbying factions rather than the ethics of a
> so-called community-at-large.

We could argue, but we won't. Let me just say, Thus the asterisks I placed
around the word "should."
>
>>> Check out the label on a can of Campbell's
>>> SpaghettiOs, for example. It emphasizes how healthy that junk is
>>> for children (because vitamins are added). And Campbell's
>>> advertising for that product claims, "Now you can feel good about
>>> giving your kids what they are asking for!" because in addition
>>> to being delicious (!), it's so healthful and will help them
>>> grow. Then look at the ingredients. One small can contains over
>>> one gram of sodium! On top of it, the whole salty mess is just a
>>> glob of white flour and cheese and sugar. That's truth in
>>> labeling and truth in advertising? No. That's ethical? No.
>>> That's legal? Yes.
>>
>> You've hit on something important here. I personally believe that the entire
>> concept of advertising is unethical because it polutes the environment,
>> whether that be our great outdoors or our peace of mind on the underground.
>> Further, advertising is in practice a no-holds-barred attempt to get me to
>> buy stuff, and that in itself is unethical. That's my humble opinion.
>
> Fine. But what you're saying, then, is that our entire
> socio-political-economic system (aka "capitalism") is unethical,
> because getting you to "buy stuff" is what sustains it and vice
> versa. With that opinion I concur.

Yes, I am saying that. You concur aright.
>
>>> Or look at an ad from GM that says you can buy a car at x% over
>>> invoice, or at employee discount prices, or whatever. Naturally,
>>> the ad doesn't mention the dealer pack, the "manufacturer's
>>> fees," etc., that result in the selling price being considerably
>>> (and invariably) much higher than what was advertised:
>>> unethical, untrue, and legal.
>>
>> I agree so completely I'm jumping up and down.
>
> I'm not sure I can take that much excitement at this hour.

It's OK. I'm back under control now.
>
>>> Our hubristic assertions about U.S. consumer protection (not to
>>> mention U.S. business "ethics") are misinformed. Our notion that
>>> other cultures' "ethics" are inferior to ours is, well, a
>>> misguided assessment, at best.
>>
>> Are you suggesting that the only source of consumer protection is from the
>> gods? I'm not disagreeing, just asking, my hubristic assertions aside.
>
> No, I'm saying that our only reliable source of consumer
> protection is our own good sense. (Whether our own good sense
> comes from the gods I'll leave for you to decide.)

Person, that's hubris! Unfortunately good sense doesn't always get us there,
but that perhaps is a discussion for another day.
>
> I'm also saying it's hubristic (and naive) to believe that our
> comparatively infantile nation could come up with a legislated
> consumer-protection scheme more effective than the
> millennia-tested "caveat emptor."
>
>> Sooooo......what about China? Perhaps you were just rambling, much like my
>> additions to your post here?
>
> What about China what? China is the 800-pound gorilla that can
> pretty much call its own shots, no?

No, I was asking you once again to be more specific about the ethical code
regarding advertising in China, since they have advertising, hence ethical
code concerning it.
>
>> BTW, I'm drinking the very worst Feng Huang Dan Cong I've ever drunk. No
>> pretense to Dan Cong flavor, lousy leaf, overroasted, poorly made, crumby
>> taste, no fruitiness, no magnolia aroma, just harsh rough and nasty. I might
>> as well have Alex send me some of that river water he mentioned elsewhere.
>> Wanna know where I got this tea? It will be my secret, and you'll never
>> know. (You won't get any either unless you go *far* out of your way, so
>> don't worry.)
>>
>> Hope this helps, but the tea's still cruddy.
>
> Thanks for the heads-up, but I never go out of my way for bad
> tea. :-)

Well, I wanted to run interference before any question about the vendor.

So, what's your favorite tea?
Michael