A sudden barrage of outdoor posters declaring that certain groups of people “deserve to die” appeared in many US cities this past summer. These posters included no other explanatory text and were often met with anger, confusion, or both. 

However, the posters could be linked to the Lung Cancer Alliance’s online campaign “No one deserves to die” where it explains that “many people believe that if you have lung cancer you did something to deserve it. It sounds absurd, but it’s true. Lung cancer doesn’t discriminate and neither should you.” Highlighting that it is just as obscene to declare that, for example, “cat lovers deserve to die” as it is to think that people with lung cancer somehow brought it upon themselves. At first glance, many people would probably find the ads offensive, but when linked to the campaign to raise awareness about lung cancer, the ads do seem effective and prove the point. My question about ethics is not so much regarding the possibility of the ads being offensive, but more about the idea that in many articles discussing this campaign, the ads are seen to be more reasonable because they are linked to a positive organization that is trying to raise awareness for a good cause. Regardless of if you think this specific ad is appropriate or not, I think that it is important to pay attention to the context of the campaign. If the ads were being used to sell a consumer good for example, they probably would not have been tolerated. So when then, is it OK to use controversial advertising methods, and are you/ should you be given more slack if the ads turn out to be in support of a good cause?