In The New York Times, there is a column called “The Ethicist,” where some writer for the newspaper gives arguments in response to questions that are posed by readers. In the question below titled “Get Out of My Subconscious!”, Chuck Klosterman is the writer who gives an argument in reply to Adam Gidding’s question about whether it’s ethical to use subliminal advertising.

Klosterman gives his views on when subliminal advertising is okay and when it isn’t okay. He offers reasons for his views, and some of them are quite shaky and careless. So put on your “critical thinking” hat, and see if you can expose a serious flaw in his account.

IN YOUR FIRST POST, make a case against at least one of Klosterman’s points, and include in that case a refutation of whatever reason(s) he gives in favor of that point.

We are asking you to demonstrate your ability to focus on an argument (a piece of reasoning) offered by someone else, and to figure out what its premises are and what is wrong with them.

IN YOUR SECOND POST, when you respond to another student, find a point they made that you didn’t make, and either agree or disagree with it, giving a reason.

When you respond to a fellow student’s response, you need to dispute some point that another student made, and to give reasons for your response. Don’t just say something like “I disagree with his or her response.” Be respectful: the goal is to have an enlightening debate

The other students post is in the file to respond to Please answer the questions above for the discussion question then respond to the other student from in the file upload

Get Out of My Subconscious!

By Chuck Klosterman

Published: September 30, 2007

Our subconscious beliefs, which we cannot easily understand or change, motivate many of the decisions we make. Some companies use manipulative branding techniques that create untrue associations between their products and some deep human desires — like sex or social status — with the goal of having the viewer establish this connection unconsciously. The desired result, presumably, is that the consumer will then buy the product with the misguided intent of fulfilling said desire. Is this practice unethical? ADAM GIDDING, NEW YORK

When I first received this question, I did not take it too seriously. But I’ve found myself thinking about it a lot, and so have a lot of other people. The Federal Trade Commission and the Bureau of Consumer Protection have each considered this issue, including situations in which the problem isn’t even visible.

In the eyes of the government, clarity of purpose is paramount: An ethical commercial seeks to distinguish a product from its competition, while an unethical advertisement tries to cloud that distinction and purposefully confuse the consumer. But you’re asking about something significantly more complex. Your question is closer to the plot of John Carpenter’s “They Live.”

Everyone knows that advertisers try to create unreal associations between products and lifestyles. Beer commercials show beer-drinkers living dynamic lives, so the implication is that consuming a certain type of beer will make your life more exciting. There is a kind of unreal message there. But this isn’t the same as subliminal advertising. The fact that the commercial’s erroneous relationship can be described and mocked proves that a consumer can recognize and reject the ad’s message.

This is not the case with actual subliminal messages, which are embedded into other mediums and virtually impossible to recognize with the conscious mind. Imagine a beer company that shoots a commercial of two hunters enjoying brews in a duck blind but secretly includes a single frame of an orgy. The single frame would be imperceptible to the casual viewer but, in theory, would still imprint on the viewer’s unconscious and tap into a base desire he will unknowingly connect to beer consumption (and if this strikes you as impossible, go to YouTube and punch the words “subliminal advertising” into the search field).

Now, the general scientific consensus is that this advertising strategy doesn’t work particularly well. Yet if it works to any degree whatsoever, it creates a unique ethical dilemma. Subliminal advertising is an optical trick. As such, it would be easy to argue that it’s unethical (because deception is unethical). That argument is valid, but it draws an awkward distinction between “lifestyle” advertising and subliminal messaging. I say this because, within reason, adults should be expected to understand the implicit agreement they enter into by watching advertising.

When a commercial for Tide laundry detergent comes on TV and the viewer elects to continue watching, the viewer is essentially saying: “O.K., pitch me on Tide. I am open to this attempt. Try to persuade me to buy Tide instead of Cheer.” We know what we are seeing and what Tide is trying to do. The only inflexible ethical expectation is that Tide won’t lie to you directly. They can’t fabricate factual data; Tide can’t claim it makes you taller or that it’s safe to eat as a snack. But I don’t think it’s incumbent on the creator of the commercial to pitch the product for the “right” reasons (whatever those may be). It’s not as if they must exclusively argue that Tide is an effective solvent or that it’s a bargain (and even if they did, few would take those messages at face value).

The viewer knows he’s seeing a biased 30-second attempt to promote the consumption of a certain product. The important thing is that this remains the ad’s singular intent: that it’s selling the product it purports to be selling. The motives need to match. So if Tide commercials are embedding subliminal messages solely to sell more Tide, I don’t think it would be necessarily unethical; it potentially could be, but that would depend on what the message was. To me, the larger risk with subliminal messages is that they could (in theory) be used to sell something else entirely.

Here’s what I mean: Let’s say somebody made a tampon commercial and employed subliminal advertising techniques, but the hidden messages promoted cigarettes. This would mean people were being pitched an unrelated product without their knowledge. They could not choose to avoid (or even consider) the embedded message, because they would not know the message was being delivered. That destroys the tacit relationship between the advertiser and the consumer. It does not allow the viewer to contextualize what they are experiencing.

It would likewise be unethical if a commercial used subliminal advertising to besmirch a competitor (Tampax shouldn’t use subliminal messaging to claim that Kotex was racist) or to directly target children. But viewed purely as an advertising technique for mature consumers — and assuming the creator’s unconscious messages reflect the intent of its conscious messages — I don’t see subliminal ads that differently from regular ads. The traditional ethical guidelines would still apply.