wasnt there a big thing a while back about people calling him unethical when he like paid to cure someones blindness or something I wonder what those people are doing right now, and if they feel vindicated
Yeah, I remember that whole thing and the general consensus being that the criticism was silly. I wonder if this new controversy at the least opens the possibility for some people that even if we say the end result of helping those people was good, that it doesn’t mean we can’t also perhaps say the action itself was cynically done for personal gain.
I haven't read much on ethics but the consequentialist analysis seems too easy? If it's about consequences, I'd think you would also have to look at the broader context of society, systems, and power imbalances. Maybe Beast's actions help further a certain narrative about homelessness being "solvable" by rich philanthropists, maybe that narrative actually harms homeless people in the long run. Does that sort of thinking fall outside of consequentialism, or is it captured in it? Is there some other term for it? I really have no idea.
No, you’re exactly right, these things are considered under consequentialism. I just gave a simplified overview for the sake of the video being accessible
This stuff is very difficult, especially with regards to considering motives as in this case. I'd consider ignorantly doing a harmful act with good intentions to still be immoral, and doing a good act with selfish intentions to be moral in itself. I thought I was in some sense Kantian because I found compelling the framework wherein whatever circumstance you find yourself in, you do those things that you could wish every other man would do in such a circumstance. (the golden rule but generalised e.g. to apply veil of ignorance) But what you described is something else altogether. Not sure what I'd consider my position then because there are some subtle nuances in contrast with utilitarianism for instance.
That is interesting. It sounds like what you're describing there at the end is consequentialism then. Perhaps though, one could argue that for any ethical system, as a part of it, by asserting that this is the right way to assess ethical dilemas, we are implicitly saying that we wish every other man would also act in the same way (given it seems absurd to say something is ethical, but to not also want others to be ethical).
@@ElusiveEel ah, just noticed this was edited while I was typing my initial reply. I think I’d tend to agree with you in terms of your initial statement, although I’d slightly differ in saying that doing a good act with selfish intentions may or may not be moral. I’d also point out that what is presented in the video is just one, very brief way of looking at each approach. We could go further in depth and take more factors into account to get a more refined version of each approach, but I wanted this to be pretty accessible to people who haven’t interacted with philosophy before.
@@ethanbenson Yeah, this was a bit more comprehensive of a lesson than the rundown of ethics I got at the end of a system design&analysis course which mentioned several possible ethical frameworks (e.g. NYT test, golden rule, utilitarianism) and edge cases where they apparently fall short, with the acadamic making a case for it not being so simple as picking a framework and running with it. I find game theory and where it intersects to be interesting, as through that and evolution even in self-centred terms there is a basis for morality. But whether this addresses morality from a philosophical pov is another question (e.g. I'd say that threats of hellfire make Christian morality not about ethics, but where does it change from that to desiring a peaceful and cooperative society).
i think it depends on what these selfish intentions are. if the intentions of hosting a charity event at a location are, that you can sell drugs and addict people with it, then i would call it moral
Think this hinges on an assumption you make at the beginning of the video which I think you don't necessarily give the attention it deserves. You assert that the primary reason for making the videos is making a viral video, but I think that many people would say that Mr Beast was actually acting altruistically, and that making the video viral is a means to achieve the end of helping the homeless person (or other beneficiary), because he needs to make the video viral to attract the sponsors who make it possible. By making a viral video, he grows his platform and can help more people. Personally I don't really follow Mr Beast or YT drama so I don't really know what his motivations are, but I think that premise maybe needs a bit more attention. Maybe I'm cynical but I never found any of these scandals remotely surprising, I've always thought this kind of brainrot content is unethical mainly because of the corrosive values it pushes (especially on impressionable young people), so it's always frustrating that it never gets challenged. This video was really well done and I hope that covering something topical helps get you some reach!
See, I can see the argument for that, but I just fundamentally disagree because he’s verbatim said in interviews that he wanted to make the video viral and that his sole goal was to become the biggest UA-camr. But as you say, perhaps I should have discussed this and made my reasoning for holding this assumption more clear in the video. Thanks for the comment!
I remember having conversations with people where they would say not all rich people are bad like mr beast and that we just don’t what it is yet well not to say I told you so but I told you so
“IN THIS VIDEO, 100 STARVING CHILDREN WILL WRITE AN ESSAY ON UTILITARIANISM. THE CHILD WITH THE BEST ESSAY WILL RECEIVE A LIFETIME SUPPLY OF FOOD! The rest get nothing”
Thank you for watching! What do you think? Was Mr Beast ever ethical? How do you reach that conclusion? I’m curious to hear your thoughts
wasnt there a big thing a while back about people calling him unethical when he like paid to cure someones blindness or something
I wonder what those people are doing right now, and if they feel vindicated
Yeah, I remember that whole thing and the general consensus being that the criticism was silly. I wonder if this new controversy at the least opens the possibility for some people that even if we say the end result of helping those people was good, that it doesn’t mean we can’t also perhaps say the action itself was cynically done for personal gain.
I haven't read much on ethics but the consequentialist analysis seems too easy? If it's about consequences, I'd think you would also have to look at the broader context of society, systems, and power imbalances. Maybe Beast's actions help further a certain narrative about homelessness being "solvable" by rich philanthropists, maybe that narrative actually harms homeless people in the long run.
Does that sort of thinking fall outside of consequentialism, or is it captured in it? Is there some other term for it? I really have no idea.
No, you’re exactly right, these things are considered under consequentialism. I just gave a simplified overview for the sake of the video being accessible
This stuff is very difficult, especially with regards to considering motives as in this case.
I'd consider ignorantly doing a harmful act with good intentions to still be immoral, and doing a good act with selfish intentions to be moral in itself.
I thought I was in some sense Kantian because I found compelling the framework wherein whatever circumstance you find yourself in, you do those things that you could wish every other man would do in such a circumstance. (the golden rule but generalised e.g. to apply veil of ignorance)
But what you described is something else altogether. Not sure what I'd consider my position then because there are some subtle nuances in contrast with utilitarianism for instance.
That is interesting. It sounds like what you're describing there at the end is consequentialism then. Perhaps though, one could argue that for any ethical system, as a part of it, by asserting that this is the right way to assess ethical dilemas, we are implicitly saying that we wish every other man would also act in the same way (given it seems absurd to say something is ethical, but to not also want others to be ethical).
@@ElusiveEel ah, just noticed this was edited while I was typing my initial reply. I think I’d tend to agree with you in terms of your initial statement, although I’d slightly differ in saying that doing a good act with selfish intentions may or may not be moral.
I’d also point out that what is presented in the video is just one, very brief way of looking at each approach. We could go further in depth and take more factors into account to get a more refined version of each approach, but I wanted this to be pretty accessible to people who haven’t interacted with philosophy before.
@@ethanbenson Yeah, this was a bit more comprehensive of a lesson than the rundown of ethics I got at the end of a system design&analysis course which mentioned several possible ethical frameworks (e.g. NYT test, golden rule, utilitarianism) and edge cases where they apparently fall short, with the acadamic making a case for it not being so simple as picking a framework and running with it.
I find game theory and where it intersects to be interesting, as through that and evolution even in self-centred terms there is a basis for morality.
But whether this addresses morality from a philosophical pov is another question (e.g. I'd say that threats of hellfire make Christian morality not about ethics, but where does it change from that to desiring a peaceful and cooperative society).
i think it depends on what these selfish intentions are. if the intentions of hosting a charity event at a location are, that you can sell drugs and addict people with it, then i would call it moral
Think this hinges on an assumption you make at the beginning of the video which I think you don't necessarily give the attention it deserves. You assert that the primary reason for making the videos is making a viral video, but I think that many people would say that Mr Beast was actually acting altruistically, and that making the video viral is a means to achieve the end of helping the homeless person (or other beneficiary), because he needs to make the video viral to attract the sponsors who make it possible. By making a viral video, he grows his platform and can help more people. Personally I don't really follow Mr Beast or YT drama so I don't really know what his motivations are, but I think that premise maybe needs a bit more attention.
Maybe I'm cynical but I never found any of these scandals remotely surprising, I've always thought this kind of brainrot content is unethical mainly because of the corrosive values it pushes (especially on impressionable young people), so it's always frustrating that it never gets challenged. This video was really well done and I hope that covering something topical helps get you some reach!
See, I can see the argument for that, but I just fundamentally disagree because he’s verbatim said in interviews that he wanted to make the video viral and that his sole goal was to become the biggest UA-camr. But as you say, perhaps I should have discussed this and made my reasoning for holding this assumption more clear in the video. Thanks for the comment!
Thank you for this video, it was great entertainment during my cooking
Glad you enjoyed it!
I remember having conversations with people where they would say not all rich people are bad like mr beast and that we just don’t what it is yet well not to say I told you so but I told you so
ugh I feel baited
How so?
What do you mean, "What if"?
You raise a good point hahaha
UA-camr discovers utilitarianism
“IN THIS VIDEO, 100 STARVING CHILDREN WILL WRITE AN ESSAY ON UTILITARIANISM. THE CHILD WITH THE BEST ESSAY WILL RECEIVE A LIFETIME SUPPLY OF FOOD! The rest get nothing”
@@ethanbenson😹😹😹😹😹😹😹