Aristotle on Smoking Advertisements Persuasive Essay by scribbler

Aristotle on Smoking Advertisements
An argument that Aristotle's "golden mean" in advertising will promote a lack of cigarette smoking.
# 152992 | 1,120 words | 5 sources | MLA | 2013 | US
Published on May 01, 2013 in Philosophy (Ancient Greek) , Law (Constitution) , Advertising (Tobacco)

$19.95 Buy and instantly download this paper now


The paper explains how Aristotle is considered a proponent of the "golden mean" between the extremes of behavior, and argues that an anti-smoking advertising campaign supporting a total ban on publicity for tobacco products is extreme in one direction just as a total, unrestricted support for the advertising is extreme in the other direction. The paper looks at two cases that support the position of tobacco advertisers to publicize their products; "Cipollone v. Liggett Group" and "Lorillard Tobacco v. Reilly", and highlights the ethical issue for supporting tobacco advertising. The paper argues that an advertising regime that exposes the dangers of smoking but allows First Amendment free speech is the "golden mean" or middle ground that will promote virtuous behavior (a lack of cigarette smoking).

Ethical Issue in Aristotle's "Golden Mean"
Cases Supporting Cigarette Advertising
Ethical Issue for Supporting Tobacco Advertising

From the Paper:

"The author will cite two cases can be cited that support the position of tobacco advertisers to publicize their products. Even in such a critical case as Cipollone v. Liggett Group in 1992, the US Supreme Court justices ruled that such antismoking suits cannot be based on claims that cigarette advertising failed to warn smokers of smoking dangers ("Cipollone v. Liggett Group"). Therefore, it can be argued that cigarette advertising fulfills an important educational role in speaking about the dangers of cigarette smoking.
"Another case the author cites is Lorillard Tobacco v. Reilly of 2001 where Justice Sandra Day O'Connor held that the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act (FCLAA) preempted Massachusetts' regulations governing outdoor and point-of-sale cigarette advertising and that the state's outdoor and point-of-sale advertising regulations related to smokeless tobacco and cigars truly violated the First Amendment ("Lorillard Tobacco v. Reilly"). Therefore, the pro-smoking advertising arguments are based solidly upon the right to advertise guaranteeing free speech under the First Amendment.
"The most recent event where the ACLU intervened to protect outrageous, offensive speech came in the case argued in front of the Supreme Court of Fred Phelps and his Westboro Baptist Church. They are notorious for protesting at military funerals with its "God Hates Fags" and "Thank God for Dead Soldiers" signs. Albert Snyder, the father of slain Iraq war soldier Matthew Snyder had sued Phelps after a protest at Matthew's funeral."

Sample of Sources Used:

  • "Cipollone v. Liggett Group." US Supreme Court Media., n.d. Web. 16 Nov 2010. <>.
  • "Golden Mean ." Home., 27 July 2007. Web. 16 Nov 2010. <
  • "Lorillard Tobacco v. Reilly." US Supreme Court Media., n.d. Web. 16 Nov 2010. <>.
  • "Protecting Outrageous, Offensive Speech ." Blog of Rights. ACLU, 06 Oct 2010. Web. 16 Nov 2010. <>.
  • "The Wisdom of Aristotle's Golden Mean." Ode. Ode, 2008. Web. 16 Nov 2010.

Cite this Persuasive Essay:

APA Format

Aristotle on Smoking Advertisements (2013, May 01) Retrieved December 09, 2023, from

MLA Format

"Aristotle on Smoking Advertisements" 01 May 2013. Web. 09 December. 2023. <>