Once again, I am bothered by Sprint's campaign for fighting AIDS. I noted in an earlier post* that Sprint's big push was that by purchasing a new phone, a small portion of the money would go to AIDS relief in Africa. What I failed to mention, though it is barely subsidiary, was that it troubled me because the ad was given during the week of Valentine's Day--as if that day made people more apt to give in a "loving" way.**
The new ad, which I encountered a couple of days ago, struck me even deeper than the last because they tried to bolster the ethical justification of buying a phone in order to help dying individuals. The controlling statement for this new commercial is: "The power to do the right thing." The implied logic of this statement is what struck me. The implication is quite obvious (in light of the whole commercial): doing the right thing is the right thing only when the one doing the right thing benefits in some way. According to this logic: helping people in Africa is the right thing to do only if we get something out of it--in this case, a new phone.
Just in case this sounds a bit exaggerated: look at how the whole presentation is given. More than 90% of the commercial is about the features of the phone, how it will benefit our lives, and--quite simply--how cool the phone is because it's a sleek red color. This better than 90% is focused entirely on the consumer and why they should purchase this new phone. As a kind of "Oh, by the way"; the part about Sprint donating $17 to fight AIDS is tacked on at the end of the presentation. My question would be: how would the people in Africa feel if they knew that they were helped only because people in America bought a new phone; and that only a portion of the money was given to them? That's not doing the right thing.
The last time I checked, doing the right thing did not involve wanting to know what rewards could be received from doing the right thing. If doing the right thing is determined by what one gets out of it, then (to me) that's not doing the right thing--that's doing the right thing under false pretenses. "When you give to the poor, do not sound a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, so that they may be honored by men. . . . When you pray, you are not to be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on the street corners, so that they may be seen by men. Truly I say to you, they [both] have their reward in full." (Matthew 6.2, 5--emphasis added).
Until we get rid of the mentality of "What's in it for me?", doing the right thing will never truly be doing the right thing. Doing the right thing is the right thing because it is the right thing to do--no other reason.
______________________________________
*It's two down from this one.
**That may be the case. If it is, that is a different blog for a different time.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I wrote a great comment, but it got deleted. I'll try again tomorrow.
I didn't delete it. :-)
Okay, let's try again.
I agree that Sprint's commercial is offensive. In a perfect world, people should do the right things for the right reasons. But, as we are all well aware, this is far from a perfect world.
We must ask ourselves - in this imperfect world what is your main goal? Sprint's goal is obviously to increase profits. What about the people who started the product[red] campaign> I think they truly want to help those suffering from AIDS in Africa (naive? maybe. But a guy's gotta find hope in humanity somewhere.)
So, the philosophical question (just for you) is whether or not it is right to use an imperfect system for good.
This is not quite the end-means-justification question, because there is no real questionable action on the part of the product[red] folks. They looked at society and the marketplace and came up with a plan to take advantage of people's habits (right or wrong) to achieve a noble goal. I see their actions as good problem solving more than as a devious plot. This is a much better plan than Bono's (I still love ya) "one" campaign that includes what amounts to a poverty tax that all will have to pay.
Sceva,
I totally agree with your thoughts about the imperfect system being used for good, and how sometimes that is a necessity. In a very real way, such is the case with us being used by God for the advancement of his kingdom. We are certainly imperfect, and he certainly wants us to do good; and who wants to argue with the Almighty? :-)
I did not mean to suggest that the Sprint campaign was a devious plot; my concern was that this happens to be the way our country feels like it has to operate. To me, it just seems like a sad commentary on our culture--i.e., essentially, people need to be bribed in order to do something for the greater good. Whatever happened to people simply doing good because it was the right thing to do?
People have done good because it was the right thing to do!?!
I must have slept in that day.
// This comment was posted with extra cynicism.
Post a Comment