Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[baker]

I think it's probably quite a hard problem to solve. It seems to me that it's a function of human nature (our collective love of passing judgement on people in the public eye), mass communications and the existence of a media and entertainment industry which is subject to market forces. You'd have to nationalize Hollywood and the TV networks in some way so as to allow them to not worry whether or not they're popular. Then the Rosanne show could keep running, and Barr et al could keep their income, even if the advertisers pulled out because they didn't want the judgmental public to associate their products with her.

Showbusiness is, at its core, unethical. It preys and relies on people's basest instincts, their insecurity, their boredom, their lack of creativity, their willingness to spend money, time, and energy on things they don't really need.

No wonder that those in the business of showbusiness occasionally run into some troubles. They are playing with fire, after all.

[Terrapin Station]

Showbusiness is, at its core, unethical.

Oy vey.

[baker]

B: If ordinary people have to and are even supposed to live in constant fear of losing their jobs, over trifles, then why the hell shouldn't celebrities??!
TS: Why should that be the case for ordinary people?
B: I don't know why it should be, I just know it is.
TS: Sure. But when we're doing ethics we're not just describing what is.

The Universe is a vast and cold place and everyone is fighting for their spot under the sun.

[baker]

Showbusiness is, at its core, unethical.

Oy vey.

No, just Occam's razor. The simplest explanation is usually the right one.

[Terrapin Station]

Oy vey.

No, just Occam's razor. The simplest explanation is usually the right one.

What makes "it's unethical" simpler than "It's ethical"?

[baker]

Showbusiness is fraught with all kinds of problems because it's unethical (and unethical endeavors are fraught with all kinds of problems).

That's the simplest explanation for the problems in showbusiness.

[Terrapin Station]

Showbusiness is fraught with all kinds of problems because it's unethical (and unethical endeavors are fraught with all kinds of problems).

That's the simplest explanation for the problems in showbusiness.

lol

okay, so what is an example of a vocation or hobby that isn't "fraught with all kinds of problems" and therefore is ethical in your view?

[baker]

An honest day's work, where one doesn't rely on one's own nor on others' greed, laziness, boredom, violence, ignorance, bad luck, desire for intoxication ...

[Pattern-chaser]

The power of words is something to harness, not to be harmed by. Bullying is a very damaging thing.

It's not likely that one will ever overcome the effects of having been bullied if one continues to let oneself be harnessed by words.

Surey you know it's not the words that do the damage? They're the medium. It's the messages they carry that do the damage.

No doubt folks are harmed (sometimes seriously) by words routinely.

Indeed.

The fact that this is under the control of the victim is a completely separate issue.

This is alt-truth! The damage done by the sociocultural (tribal) messages are not the fault of the victim, and the victim can no more resist them than their skin can refuse to part under the knife that is thrust through it.

For example: can you harm a person with words if they don't speak your language? How about trying to harass someone on social media who doesn't have a social media account? Can't do it.

Twaddle; misleading, distracting, twaddle, as I'm sure you know.

[Terrapin Station]

An honest day's work, where one doesn't rely on one's own nor on others' greed, laziness, boredom, violence, ignorance, bad luck, desire for intoxication ...

That's a particular vocation or hobby?

[Sy Borg]

Totalitarian regimes have traditionally scorned artists as unethical, unless they work in service of the state, eg. the military. Extremist religions too, like the Taliban, reject the arts. Mao rejected the arts unless in service of the state. Earlier it was Oliver Cromwell's Puritans.

Some of us here would have paid with our lives for our immoral enjoyment of creative activities in such environments. I hope we can keep the StrongMen (ie. quasi-mafiosos) at bay. Otherwise we will find out what it is like to be literally cancelled.

[LuckyR]

No doubt folks are harmed (sometimes seriously) by words routinely.

Indeed.

The fact that this is under the control of the victim is a completely separate issue.

This is alt-truth! The damage done by the sociocultural (tribal) messages are not the fault of the victim, and the victim can no more resist them than their skin can refuse to part under the knife that is thrust through it.

For example: can you harm a person with words if they don't speak your language? How about trying to harass someone on social media who doesn't have a social media account? Can't do it.

Twaddle; misleading, distracting, twaddle, as I'm sure you know.

I agree that the damage from hate speech is not the fault of the victim, it is the fault of the perpetrators. I never said otherwise, as I'm sure you know. However, as a separate issue, there are very effective defenses against verbal assaults. The fact that some are adept and others inept at deploying these defenses should not be a controversial statement to anyone with a modicum of life experience.

[baker]

An honest day's work, where one doesn't rely on one's own nor on others' greed, laziness, boredom, violence, ignorance, bad luck, desire for intoxication ...

That's a particular vocation or hobby?

Rarely in whole. For example, being a plummer or an electrician is morally quite straightforward for the most part, but it stops being so when it comes to luxurious installations that serve no practical purpose other than to indulge in luxury.

But there are vocations and hobbies that are to begin with born out of greed, laziness, boredom, violence, ignorance, bad luck, desire for intoxication. Such as making alcoholic beverages, cigarettes, much art.

Anyway, I'm not here to judge various vocations and hobbies. My point is just that some vocations and hobbies are born out of motivations that are ethically problematic, so it's no wonder that those fields are fraught with ethical problems.

[baker]

Totalitarian regimes have traditionally scorned artists as unethical, unless they work in service of the state, eg. the military. Extremist religions too, like the Taliban, reject the arts. Mao rejected the arts unless in service of the state. Earlier it was Oliver Cromwell's Puritans.

Some of us here would have paid with our lives for our immoral enjoyment of creative activities in such environments. I hope we can keep the StrongMen (ie. quasi-mafiosos) at bay. Otherwise we will find out what it is like to be literally cancelled.

Are you familiar with the Buddhist take on what makes for right livelihood?

AFAIK, it's the only religion with what would be termed an extremely conservative ethic, yet it is not justified with a moral imperative, unlike the example you list above.
It's an instructive example of how there can be an extremely conservative ethic without a categorical moral imperative.

[Pattern-chaser]

When the powerful bully the weak it is called: nothing... that's considered normal. But when a large number of the weak can bully the (self described) powerful we give it a name and now a thread on a Philosophy Forum.

Yes, good point! But let's remember that the truly-powerful are not celebrities, and have no strong or recognisable public presence. The real baddies - billionaires - remain untouched and unconsidered ... as they want.