Does advertising shape culture, or does culture shape advertising? Whether humans like it or not, advertising exists everywhere, in magazines, television or newspapers. Advertising contributes to the loss of individual cultures but creates an entirely new, single one. This new culture that is created by advertising exposes humans to an entire new world, full of products and luxuries that humans may find appealing and are willing to purchase. This advertising industry is a commodity in our everyday lives, where we walk, where we relax etc. If we did not have these advertisements humans would not know of products, such as Starbucks coffee or a type of cheese. Consequently businesses would fail due to lack of publicity, or may not even exist.
The economy would be in danger from the business decline and no one would know what to purchase or what there is. As a result, the advertising agency forms a culture on its own, the culture of publicity and purchasing different and new products. The advertising shapes culture in these terms. However from this culture, advertisements are created. This means that advertising agencies concentrate on which products appeal to humans and exploits those interests in order to sell the product of the company that they are working for. For example, to compare Coca Cola with Pepsi, Coca Cola may be selling less than Pepsi, and the company creates Diet Coke, to appeal to the people that are trying to be healthier.
Thus sales may increase due to the new products that appeal to those seeking healthier lives. At first, advertising shapes a culture of which people purchase products that are advertised, and from there this culture shapes the advertising for a new product that appeals more to the people than a previous product, increasing revenue for the company. Conclusively, the advertising shapes culture at first, but then from there, the culture shapes the new advertisements.
Our emotions have a direct impact on the decisions we make. We do not specifically recall emotions, they are spontaneous and impulsive. A certain situation may trigger a reaction in the form of an emotion. We might cry during a film, or feel a pit in our stomach during a funeral, but these are all-impulsive, and have an effect on what we decide. Emotions themselves might distort and cloud the judgment or the ethics that we follow. We say that emotions make a decisions irrational, as it acts as an unwanted factor that influences or even alters our the ethics that we follow.
Our ethics are developed at an early stage in our development as a person. Our parents, and events help build our interpretations of what is right and what is wrong. Ethics are often foundations to the principles we follow. We stick to these ethics as best possible. Depending on the situation, experiences gained and emotions, we may alter our ethics. Our ethics are not changed entirely due to feeling, but emotion is a factor that may temporarily jeopardise or alter the principles we base our decisions on. Situations may project feelings, that cause due to emotion no to follow our ethics. Our friends might tell us that drugs really are great, and stealing is the only way of getting something we want. This might create feelings of curiosity and pressure, that then push aside ethic principles,
and causes an irrational decision. Still the principles we were taught still say that drugs are bad, and that stealing something is not fair. We have a tendency of being influenced by others, and not standing by what we actually believe. In the case if drugs, the emotions became an unwanted factor that ripples the principles we would use to be fully rational. The problem of knowledge is that the extent to which emotion influences our ethics may be different depending on the person, and the ethics that they use as a foundation for decisions.
I believe that the mind should rule the heart. The heart often acts as a check, to make an emotional justification. If we give in to feeling and the influence of other people, the decisions we make are not fully our own, and the result is not always what we want. Our principles are our interpretation of what is right and what is wrong, if we developed them ourselves or were taught them. The interpretations are personal, and value of the principles can only be judged by that individual. We cannot escape feeling and emotion. An experience, or an emotion might have developed a principle that we follow. Taking the example of love. Love is rationally a chemical released by the brain. Still it has a very strong influence on what we feel, and the decisions we make Emotions are based on emotions, in this case love. We might have become heart broken, an emotion that may
have a strong effect. Feeling hurt and rejected, we base principle on the emotion of rejection. We might never learn to trust or love again, based purely on these emotions and the specific incident. Rationally we know that not all women are evil, and that we are not as selfish as they say we are, but we are overwhelmed by the emotion, and as a result of this develop an irrational belief. Our ethics are changed, and we no longer trust women.
The decision might not be fully rational, but this is because our principles are distorted or altered because of this emotion. In this example emotion becomes a very influential part of our ethical judgement, but it may vary from person to person and the situation in hand. Another person might have a great experience with women, believing that women can be trusted and are caring. Another might have ethics that say one bad experience does not mean that all women have to be alike. The situation and person have a large impact on the emotions that influence ethics and principles.
I believe the mind should rule the heart, another might believe that you should follow your feelings in order to make the right decision. The extend to which these emotions effect our ethics is different from person to person. The position of the person, might build up different ethics, and might be immune to emotions, or might be more open to emotions. A military general would react very differently to emotion compared to a counsellor for single mothers.
The general will base all his decisions on efficiency and advance. He would be less influenced by the emotions of the mothers of his soldiers. Even if these mothers protested against a war, and that their sons had been fighting too long, the general bases his decisions on the efficiency of his troops, and what would be best for the army as a whole. This doesn’t mean that he doesn’t feel the cry of the mothers, but based on this principles and ethics, the emotion does not influence his decisions as an army man. In this case, the emotions play a very small role in the ethics and judgement of the general.