Propaganda and Human Rights

'Propaganda' is an attempt by a large corporation, body of people, or group to sway the minds of multiple individuals to believe a certain thing or ideology. Used both for good and not-good intent, propaganda, especially in the modern world, is everywhere. From politics to advertising to fast food to management, there is propaganda surrounding us day in and day out, with the media taking advantage of popular opinion and understanding by making one believe something they may not want to. In theory, this is terrible, an example of a mass corporation taking away the protected minds of the individuals  of society. However, under certain circumstances, this same ideology could easily be twisted to become an important, good feature in society.


In context, propaganda sucks. There's no other way to say it. The idea of a mass corporation to understand a certain piece of information is not only a single detriment to the right  to human privacy and constitutional protecting, but also breaks the fourth amendment of the right to search and seizure when the government is allowed to open up into our personal lives. There isn't a single situation when the government forcing the public to believe a NEGATIVE ideology could ever be sufficient. Take the example of the Nazi party in antebellum Germany. You have the government, hence the ruling corporation, of Germany promising a rise in public voice and freedom so long as the minority is blamed at the root of the problem. What was the resultant? 6 million innocent deaths. Probably more. Under most common context, propaganda is disgusting.


However, looking at it from the context of Utopia, it's genius. Propaganda might single-handedly be the most crucial concept in the formation of a Utopia. Within the hands of a single individual, the idea of convincing an entire public that there's a certain truth to modernist belief is the easiest way to maximize total control of public belief and understanding. Not only can this be done through fear and provocation, but in essence, this entire system may single-handedly be able to take 50,000 men and women and make them believe the exact same thing. Going back to my previous post, it takes common, united, socialistic belief that supports the understanding and formation of a unified society. With propaganda, it seems totally necessary that it would be used within the confines of a utopian breakthrough.


Now, this argument breaks apart like a crack when you apply the philosophical construct of 'Utilitarianism.' This philosophy, primarily ethics-driven, states that the most ethical activity is the one that ensures the most happiness. This is the same prospect that defended the community in 'Those Who Walk Away from Omelas.' Going under this context, the argument could be shifted both ways, and I'll analyze them both in the following paragraphs:


Yes: If the context of the situation is to ensure positively-driven citizens who are willing, and able, to follow the guidelines of the society, then utilitarianism will support the concept. Unlike the Nazi party, if the community were to utilize mass propaganda as a support system to give good reasons for supporting the government, and if there were no violent cost, such as the suffering child in 'Omelas,' then the Utilitarian argument says that propaganda could be a necessary piece of this society.


No: If maximum happiness is being given in exchange for a violent action that suppresses human quality and condition, such as the child suffering in 'Omelas' or the restriction of free-thought and expressions within Kurt Vonnegut's 'Harrison Bergeron,' the human condition is being broken in exchange for corporate value and proficiency. In this case, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, and the entire society does not feel universal protection; the utilitarian would not support it.


I will attack this concept from my own ethical standpoint. I don't feel like propaganda could ever be a necessary, nor effective, tool within the community of any sort of nation, whether utopian, socialist, or capitalist. I see dominant control of a massive corporation FORCING the singular belief of an ideology to be inherently wrong, because the thoughts of an individual are protected under the first amendment of the constitution, as well as the human right to privacy and individual thought. Thus, when a corporation tries to infringe both of those rights, I see it as antimoral, and cannot support it under any conclusion thereof.