Is there really a difference between a moral standpoint and a cultural one? Doesn’t our culture inform our morals to such a great extent that not only are the lines blurred and the circles overlapping, but that they all basically become one homogenous ball? You can’t have morals independent of culture; they don’t exist in a vacuum. (Which is what bothers me about libertarian “natural rights” arguments. You don’t have rights to anything if you’re born on a raft in the middle of the ocean; you need someone or something to grant you those rights.)
Back to the MTV ads: They may play to (or, to use your friend’s word, Alex, co-opt) the STD ads in an offensive or tasteless way. But don’t many PSAs–for STDs, drugs, whatever–similarly co-opt our aesthetic and cultural values? Everything uses everything else to some degree, so why is MTV criticized for it when those that create PSAs are given a pass?
Is it because they’re communicating an important message? If so, who determines what messages are important? For example, those “this is your brain on drugs” ads were clearly at least misleading on some (anecdotal) levels. Someone mentioned at lunch today that Robert Downey Jr. needs help because he’s hurting himself after being arrested yet again. Why does he need help? Have you seen the guy recently on Ally McBeal? In Wonder Boys? He can act, and if he can act while he’s coked up, bravo. Sure, drugs screw many people up and have devastating consequences, and I’m not trivializing that. That was just a tangent to prove my point that not all PSAs are necessarily morally right and thus worthy of exemption from critique. Phew.
Is it just me, or does it feel right now like we’re debating late at night in a dorm lobby that smells like a mix of industrial strength pine cleaner and stale bodily fluids?
Andy
