Advertising a product that does X/Y/Z but also causes cancer without mentioning the cancer means people want a different product that isn’t being sold.

Currently (edit:some) prescription drugs are being advertised with mentions of side effects like death, but what’s being treated isn’t mentioned. That’s clearly not advertising the actual product being sold either, yet it’s also effective.

Care to elaborate?

Are pills being sold by pretty ads that are required to tell people about risks AND required not to tell about what the pill is for?

AND those ads WORK?

Wow

They are allowed to tell you want the pill is for, but I have seen a few commercials where I had no idea what the pill was trying to treat.

> I'm asking if the way a desire comes to be makes the desire good or bad, independently of whether the desire itself is good for you.

Yes, I think. For example, if I develop a desire because someone lies to me or manipulates me, then the formation of the desire itself is bad (and potentially corrupting since believing lies or being subject to manipulation can lead to further cognitive problems).

As you say desires can push you towards both good and bad things. But we value not only those good or bad things, we also value autonomy and good habits of mind. So in various ways, ill-formed desires can be bad for us.

If you're interested in this sort of thing, you might find Vices of the Mind by Quassim Cassam interesting. It's more about belief than desire, but I think that the issues are closely related.

https://newbooksnetwork.com/quassim-cassam-vices-of-the-mind...

Through the various replies here, there's more than enough evidence of harm. It seems you are, at this point, merely defending your prior statement and not addressing the issue in any way. We can attempt to nullify all harmful things by redirecting them with some philosophical meta-analysis, e.g.: harm is good because it leads to growth/development/character. Ultimately, that's an easy way to abstract your way out of recognizing facts. The powerful tools available to advertisers and the persistence of those tools across devices & platforms is beyond most minds to resist. If you want to be philosophical, a better position would be to view such as enslavement because that is the logical endpoint.

> Through the various replies here, there's more than enough evidence of harm. It seems you are, at this point, merely defending your prior statement and not addressing the issue in any way.

What's the original statement you think I'm defending? It sounds like you and a few others are responding to the claim "maybe advertising is completely fine all the time", which is not what I'm saying. I'm responding to one specific argument against advertising, namely the idea that "implanted" desires are fundamentally worse/different than "true" desires.

> We can attempt to nullify all harmful things by redirecting them with some philosophical meta-analysis, e.g.: harm is good because it leads to growth/development/character. Ultimately, that's an easy way to abstract your way out of recognizing facts.

It sounds like you're saying you're against this kind of low-level philosophical argument analysis? Like, if advertising is bad, we should only ever be talking about how advertising is actually bad and never talk about anything else?

If someone said "advertising starts with an A so it's bad" and another responds "are you sure? I think some things that start with A can be good", would you say that's a bad thing to say since advertising is bad overall, so why defend it in any way?

I think if you think advertising is bad and dangerous, it's all the more important to have robust, clear arguments on why exactly it's bad.

> If you want to be philosophical, a better position would be to view such as enslavement because that is the logical endpoint.

"If you want to be philosophical, a better position would be <my position> because <it's correct>".

I guess there's no pulling you through the loop, out of your constructions. So to clarify: implanted desires are worse. This is demonstrable if we only consider the unaccounted cost of profiteering, whether it be ecological or the debasement of other humans. There is no need to transcend to philosophical inquiry because the harm imposed is so evident. You have to acknowledge that, but you chose to elevate your position in argument to the abstract where harm is only theoretical. Second, this is a somewhat absurd oversimplification of my position to create a strawman and, again, elevate your position in some moralistic superiority hierarchy built around meta thinking (all too common) The reason they killed Socrates? Mayhaps. Then you repeat yourself and again strawman my argument. No Advertising isn't bad. There are insidious techniques that the mind cannot distinguish. These are evil/wrong/bad, whatever Newspeak you prefer. Once they are known, they must be prohibited, e.g. as subliminal political messaging was banned. Lastly, it is clear you think highly of yourself and your thoughts... this is clear. However, I believe your rhetoric falls short in this instance

Yeah, I'm pointing out the thing that I find the most objectionable about advertising which is that it's main function is to steal my attention.

I don't think there is such a thing as a good desire or a bad desire, they are just desire and all desires are something to work on bringing awareness to so they don't rule you.

For the sake of argument I'll say the way a desire comes into being has no bearing on making it good or bad. What is the implication of this with respect to advertising in your mental model?