Is there a moral obligation to look at or listen to commercial advertisements, whether on television, on the radio, in newspapers, in magazines, or on the Internet? Hear me out. I don't pay anything to read New York Times stories, op-ed columns, and letters to the editor. The Times makes a profit by selling its readers' attention to advertisers. If I don't at least look at the advertisements, I'm getting something for nothing. Why is that not stealing? Cable television may be different, since you have to pay for the service; but again, I pay nothing for the Times. I have even trained myself not to look at advertisements. I was thinking today about an advertisement I had seen on television many times, but I couldn't identify the company in question! I feel vaguely guilty about this, although, to this point, the guilt isn't sharp enough to make me look at the advertisements.
If you think there is no moral obligation, explain why. How does reading the Times without looking at advertisements differ from stealing a copy of the Times from the newsstand (or, to cut out the middleman, from the lobby of the Times building)? If you think there is a moral obligation, what is its content? It could be any of the following: (1) looking at the advertisements; (2) clicking on the advertisements to read more about the products or services being sold; or (3) buying a product or service. I think it's clear that reading the Times doesn't generate the third obligation. The Times is selling its advertisers our attention, not our money, which is ours to dispose of as we please. So my question is, if you think there is a moral obligation, is it of the first type or the second, and why?
