if i give someone money and that alleviates their poverty, is that an ethical action? i think so. you are eliminating harm by reducing hunger, providing shelter, etc.
if i give someone money and that alleviates their poverty, but i do it for my own personal gain, is that an ethical action? you are still eliminating harm but you are doing it for an amoral reason.
ethical action, amoral motivation
then there’s the perspective of by taking advantage of this individual, you are doing your part in perpetuating an unjust system. you are playing the role of the opiate of the masses. distracting and comforting those who are at the bottom of the pyramid.
having said all that, i think it’s still more ethical than bumfights. although i couldn’t tell you if it was ethical or not by its own
He isn’t generally elevating randos out of poverty though. I don’t have citations but my understanding is most of the big payouts he has done went to people in his friend group despite the implication that it was not.
The sleep deprivation guy seemed like he could have a lawsuit against Mr. Beast. At least based on what he was saying, it sounded like what they did to him should have been illegal
You’re right, maybe not the best descriptor, but it’s a hard concept to properly articulate.
Man with money finds people in need and gives them a dump truck of cash to ostensibly make their lives better. Paying for surgeries for people, buying meals for the hungry, etc. is an “ethical” alternative to paying homeless people to fight each other for entertainment. But it doesn’t change the fact that it is still exploitative content that commodifies the suffering of others for his own enrichment. Doing the right thing for the wrong reasons. I can’t help but think he would hardly be so “generous” if he was losing more than he was getting out of it.
Not to mention he is being lionized as this capitalist success story to show that the system works, absolving the wealthy of guilt, while his success is entirely based around the fact that capitalism is failing the majority who live under it. And all of the feel-good narratives just make it easier to ignore all of the people he hasn’t helped.
And now that he’s made himself into a brand, he can leverage that brand to hawk overpriced, moldy food and grow even richer. And people out there are buying his brand because they believe it somehow supports a better cause than buying the overpriced, not-as-moldy food from the corporation he’s competing with.
If he wants to live ethically, he should be losing money until he is reduced down to his own level of need. Mr. Beast is supposedly a Christian and that is what the ethics of that religion dictate. In an ideal economy, people shouldn’t be able to hoard wealth either.
One just needs to ask why he stops where he does with his giving, and why not go further to do more good if that’s supposed to be the point? Or why not use that money to stop these problems at the source rather than just providing temporary aid to a tiny subset of victims?
No one with as much money as he has is a good person.
He’s basically just doing ethical bumfights, exploiting the victims of capitalism for YouTube views and thereby increasing his own wealth further.
Ethical?
it’s an interesting moral question
if i give someone money and that alleviates their poverty, is that an ethical action? i think so. you are eliminating harm by reducing hunger, providing shelter, etc.
if i give someone money and that alleviates their poverty, but i do it for my own personal gain, is that an ethical action? you are still eliminating harm but you are doing it for an amoral reason.
ethical action, amoral motivation
then there’s the perspective of by taking advantage of this individual, you are doing your part in perpetuating an unjust system. you are playing the role of the opiate of the masses. distracting and comforting those who are at the bottom of the pyramid.
having said all that, i think it’s still more ethical than bumfights. although i couldn’t tell you if it was ethical or not by its own
Defining ethics is a question as old as philosophy itself.
He isn’t generally elevating randos out of poverty though. I don’t have citations but my understanding is most of the big payouts he has done went to people in his friend group despite the implication that it was not.
Based on some interviews there is nothing ethical about what this guy is doing. Based on one case I think he should be in jail
The sleep deprivation guy seemed like he could have a lawsuit against Mr. Beast. At least based on what he was saying, it sounded like what they did to him should have been illegal
Exactly, these sociopath dipshits are skirting the law on technicalities but any reasonable person would agree they should be behind bars
Sources?
Some portions are not easy to listen to
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NHFvR0ArXPs
You’re right, maybe not the best descriptor, but it’s a hard concept to properly articulate.
Man with money finds people in need and gives them a dump truck of cash to ostensibly make their lives better. Paying for surgeries for people, buying meals for the hungry, etc. is an “ethical” alternative to paying homeless people to fight each other for entertainment. But it doesn’t change the fact that it is still exploitative content that commodifies the suffering of others for his own enrichment. Doing the right thing for the wrong reasons. I can’t help but think he would hardly be so “generous” if he was losing more than he was getting out of it.
Not to mention he is being lionized as this capitalist success story to show that the system works, absolving the wealthy of guilt, while his success is entirely based around the fact that capitalism is failing the majority who live under it. And all of the feel-good narratives just make it easier to ignore all of the people he hasn’t helped.
And now that he’s made himself into a brand, he can leverage that brand to hawk overpriced, moldy food and grow even richer. And people out there are buying his brand because they believe it somehow supports a better cause than buying the overpriced, not-as-moldy food from the corporation he’s competing with.
He wouldn’t be able to do it if he was losing money though.
It’s such a tricky subject.
If you don’t use it to make money you can’t do it anymore.
So is making money off it bad if you use that money to doore.
If he wants to live ethically, he should be losing money until he is reduced down to his own level of need. Mr. Beast is supposedly a Christian and that is what the ethics of that religion dictate. In an ideal economy, people shouldn’t be able to hoard wealth either.
One just needs to ask why he stops where he does with his giving, and why not go further to do more good if that’s supposed to be the point? Or why not use that money to stop these problems at the source rather than just providing temporary aid to a tiny subset of victims?