Utilitarian mumbo-jumbo
On Saturday night, Jennifer and I got to go on a date which hasn’t happened much since #4 came along. We went to dinner and then, since we hadn’t seen the Harry Potter movie yet, we went to the 9:00 showing.
Prior to the movie, they were showing the ads and there was this one, where it showed this younger woman — in her mid-20’s, I’d guess — fighting a fire. She then turns her soot-grimed face to the camera and says something like, “I’m glad I get to save people’s lives because 24 years ago my mother chose not to abort me.”
While I disagree with the argument in general and think that someone could easily say, “yeah, for every potential firewoman that’s aborted, 2 potential drug dealers are aborted.” (see the argument in Freakonomics), I’m more apalled about the use of utilitarian argument in regards to abortion.
Why can’t they just say…”we believe that human life — even in embryonic form — is sacred and to abort it constitutes as murder.” Is that not good enough? I just think that utilitarian arguments are so weak…and sound like a marketing-savvy attempt to sway public opinion.
Charlie,
I think you’re missing the point.
That advertisement or psa exists to convince people. When you say “We believe that all life – even in embryonic form – is sacred…” you won’t convince anyone of anything. You’re only reinforcing that view.
People who fundamentally disagree with that presupposition can and will simply write it off.
But, when you give logical evidence, or in this case more of an emotional appeal (which yes, I know, is a logical fallacy), you force the viewer to actually reconsider their position in light of the evidence given.
So, like I said. The ad exists to convince people. Just saying “We believe such and such” isn’t going to persuade anyone.
PS – I’m not exactly sure the ad is utilitarian in nature. Utilitarian arguments deal with whether or not a certain action will benefit society overall. While you might have taken the ad to imply that, that is not necessarily the argument presented. It’s more of an emotional appeal.
anonymous
October 3, 2007 at 2:06 pm
So, did you like the movie?
Julie
October 4, 2007 at 9:07 am
I think a great follow up would be to show a 4 or 5 year old say ” I’m here because the comercial you just watched changed my mothers mind.” If it puts a check mark in the morally correct decision column… who cares what argument was made.
Tim H
October 4, 2007 at 11:26 pm
julie — no, I did not…least favorite book of the seven translated to my least favorite movie so far…plus I was really tired…so that always impairs my movie reviewing capabilities.
Tim —
ends justifies the means?
charliedean
October 5, 2007 at 6:48 am
right on Charlie. i’m tired of being marketed to. the abortion issue is not about having enough firefighters to save people – so why is it being sold like that?
it isn’t about what logical fallacy is being abused, though. the issue is that there are some truths (arguably the most important ones) that will never be found at the end of a “logical” argument. the most meaningful truths are the ones that go far beyond a cold equation.
Mitchell
October 5, 2007 at 4:29 pm
to save a life…yeah
Tim H
October 6, 2007 at 11:02 pm
I think we need to resist reaching people as a group… gays… people about to have abortions etc… It’s better to have a mind set to reach people with respect as indiviuals… and know that in loving people we will encounter cultural issues that are contrary to God’s way. The sin issues of are day will respond better to Christ like people encountering them and loving them then they ever will to utilitarian psa’s
leesa
October 9, 2007 at 3:36 pm