11 ms·
The reason this act breaks a moral boundary is that it subverts a principle of "ends" [1]. A genuine random act of kindness cannot occur if it's being filmed.
by nonrandomstring 4y ago
The reason this act breaks a moral boundary is that it subverts a
principle of "ends" [1]. A genuine random act of kindness cannot occur
if it's being filmed. Filming the act turns it into a virtue
display. It also turns the subject into an object of utility, a means
and not and end in themself.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Ends https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Ends
- TheDudeMan 4y agoEven liking and sharing these videos is virtue signaling.
- duxup 4y agoI dunno I disagree. Something can be kind and filmed. The issue here is how it plays out the person gifted isn’t more than a prop.
- IG_Semmelweiss 4y agoI think the wikipedia article from OP makes a strong point that you may have missed. Notice the wording "ENDS" That would modify your statement as follows : Something can be kind and filmed (provided.. ENDS). OR restating your sentence: "Something can be kind and filmed provided filming was not the goal of the kindness, and in fact filming was entirely unintended and unexpected"
- silicon2401 4y agoI agree much more with your wording of the idea, though I still believe 100% it's possible to do something kind with the intention of filming it. If someone wants to donate a million dollars to me they're welcome to film it on a million cameras if they want
- phpisthebest 4y agoThe flip side here is agreement on both sides, for me that is the moral question. Not that it was filmed, but that all parties should agreed to the filming. Prearranging to film giving you a million dollars, is very different from just showing up an putting camera's in your face with out your foreknowledge or consent
- silicon2401 4y agoThen I think we may differ on whether we consider consent/agreement a part of kindness. I don't think it's that simple. I think an act can be kind but be delivered in an incompatible way. Asking someone how they're feeling after a breakup can be genuinely kind IMO, even if you didn't realize that that's the last thing they want to think about and asking them caused them to have an emotional breakdown that they blame you for. At this point I'm disregarding the tiktok thing entirely; I would still consider the million dollar gift to anyone an incredibly kind gesture, even if filmed without prior planning/agreement.
- IG_Semmelweiss 4y agoi think we are discussing separate points OP commingled morals and kindness when his intent (now obvious to me after rereading) was to explicitly discuss morality of the situation. You are exploring the morality of performing an action that violates moral norms (in this case, expectation of privacy) We were exploring whether it is possible to be kind from an act if the end goal is obtain valuable exchange, off the act
- azemetre 4y agoWhat about this story that the thread is discussing? The woman in question did not appreciate being filmed, is this still an example of kindness? Not trying to argue here just understanding your thought process, because I agree with the poster you replied to.
- sixothree 4y agoAgreed. I don't see any kindness in this video at all.
- bumby 4y agoI think the distinction comes from differing worldviews on moral behavior. Consequentialists believe all that matters is the "ends". So even if I filmed something with the aim of patting myself on the back but it made people feel good, it's moral because the outcome was positive. Others believe all that matters is intent. A good Samaritan may act recklessly and end up maiming somebody, but they acted morally because they had positive intent to offer aid. (Of course, there's many other takes but those seem to be the one's germane to this part of the discussion).
- ncallaway 4y agoI’ve really come to think of my moral framework as trying to maintain an Aristotle golden mean between Consequentialism and Deontology. Both outcome and intent matter, and the tricky question is how to balance the two. I don’t have a strong philosophical argument to justify the balance I aim to strike in daily life, but it definitely feels like both consequentialism and deontology fall down when left totally to their own devices.
- bumby 4y ago>the tricky question is how to balance the two. I've heard people smarter than me advocate contractualism as a way of finding balance between the two.
- petercooper 4y agoMrBeast. He's almost universally lauded for his generosity and good deeds which are mostly funded by ad revenue or sponsors and seemingly done specifically for YouTube clout.
- flatline 4y agoMy kids love Mr Beast. I have used the same word used here, “dehumanizing”, to describe him. The very premise places more value on money than people. It’s made for some great philosophical discussions with two ~10 year olds though.
- throwaway675309 4y agoUgh. Everything about "MrBeast" I find marginally offensive. The way that he approaches the idea of unconditional charity is almost theatrical and smacks of sensationalism.
- duxup 4y agoYes I think that’s reasonable.
- jcynix 4y agoFrom the description, the flowers weren't offered as a gift, but he asked her to hold them. And then disappeared. Just think of someone asking you told hold his stuff for a moment and then disappears. Now you have to care for something that's neither your's nor wanted? I'm tempted to call that obnoxious, not nice.
- TheDudeMan 4y agoSure, it can still be kind. But it is not an act of kindness, it is an act of social media.
- the_af 4y agoNot only was this act meant for an audience, but he also tricked her because he was afraid she wouldn't want the flowers. Very underhanded.
- bumby 4y agoIsn't a limitation of Kant's view that intention is all that matters? In other words, neither context or outcome change the morality of the action?
- vlunkr 4y agoContext has a big impact on intention. This video is a prime example of that.
- crmd 4y agoHis intention was to film and monetize a viral video.
- bumby 4y agoThat's the cynical take, yes.
- jeremyjh 4y agoIt is a factual description of what happened. I don't see a lot of room for interpretation here.
- bumby 4y agoExcept the distinction is you were describing intent and not the event. The event can be framed as a factual description, but the intent cannot unless you somehow have unique insight into the person's mind. You can infer intent in this situation, but you can't really claim it as an objective fact. That's not to mention that the two (action to create a viral video and the intent to truly act out of kindness) don't have to be mutually exclusive. For example, if I did the same to create a viral video with the intent to shape social norms, that would probably be a more moral decision than to create a viral video for monetary gain.
- dncornholio 4y agoIt's not her limitation. A limitation would be to not realise the true intent.
- phpisthebest 4y agoSocial Media has largely exposed the levels of narcissism embedded in a large number of human's psychological makeup , Selfies, clout chasing and virtue signalling are ever increasing forms of narcissism that really has destroyed the internet IMO
- throwaway0a5e 4y agoIt's really a shame people turned virtue signaling into a dirty world that can't be used in civil discussion. It is a great descriptor for all sorts of human behavior in all sorts of contexts. Edit: y'all are kind of proving my first point.
- phpisthebest 4y agoI am not aware of a context where virtue signaling would be a good practice or behavior.
- throwaway0a5e 4y agoI meant it's a useful and descriptive term. I abhor the behavior.
- Zachsa999 4y agoI like too think a virtuous person signals virtue without being narcissistic
- erybodyknows 4y agoVirtue can be practiced and even observed without being signalled.
- tsol 4y agoPracticing virtue in public, even if you don't intend it that way, is signaling virtue. What is strange is how in our society virtue has to be justified. Is it virtue signaling that people dislike, or being fake?
- treesknees 4y agoIt depends on the context and use of the video, and I really blame social media for driving this constant pressure to be relevant and generate content people will interact with. Granted this isn't a random act, but at a family birthday gathering sometimes it can be fun to take a photo or video of a loved one opening a present and capturing their genuine surprise as a memory. But I've never uploaded them to the Internet, because it wasn't about likes or shares. And I don't feel that capturing the moment ruined any of the meaning behind it.
- guerrilla 4y agoI'm not religious but it reminds me of Matthew 6:5-6 "And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites. For they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. Truly I tell you, they already have their full reward. But when you pray, go into your inner room, shut your door, and pray to your Father, who is unseen. And your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you." Some people have always just wanted to show how good they are instead of trying to actually be good (not saying praying is necessarily good but clearly the people who wrote the bible and the people they're speaking of did :P)
- ask_b123 4y agoI was also reminded of Matthew 6, but I thought of the first 4 verses “Be careful not to practice your righteousness in front of others to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven. So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you."
- zelos 4y agoAlthough, one could read that as "do good for an audience, just do it for the right audience"
- guerrilla 4y agoI think that's abstracting too far. They're not even of the same metaphysical substance in the mythology, let alone ethical character.
- EnderWT 4y agoIt's not even an act of kindness. It's a prank.
- e-clinton 4y agoI disagree. If entertainment value can be extracted out of people doing good things, then we 100% should do that. The issue here is that the creator didn’t do a good thing. He should’ve offered the flowers outright and asked permission to post the video.
- TheRealNGenius 4y agoTell that to mr beast.
- TheRealNGenius 4y agowhat in the ever mother loving fuck did 9 year old beasturds just downvote me lol.
- jimmyjazz14 4y agoThe act itself is also shallow, flowers are meant more of a symbolic gift; I give my wife flowers maybe to express love but if I just gave some random person flowers on the street without any further explanation then I have simply given that person a dead plant. If the guy gave the lady something of actual value or that served a need, or even just made statement as to the meaning of the flowers it could have changed the dynamic. Further it is customary to ask someone (especially someone you do not know well) to accept a gift and to explain why the gift was given; there is a very good reason for this.
- golemotron 4y ago> It also turns the subject into an object of utility, a means and not and end in themself. False dichotomy. It can be both.
- nonrandomstring 4y ago> False dichotomy. It can be both. I was about to agree, but then this is deeper than a simple binary. You are right if saying one could act towards another so as to benefit them and yourself. And, if so maximising the total utility that is utilitarianism. No dichotomy. However, and this why Kant's categorical imperative isn't utilitarianism, something cannot be both a means and and an end. A node in a tree cannot be both a parent and a leaf node.
- golemotron 4y agoWhy not? I can exercise both because it makes me feel good and because it is good for my health. There is no contradiction. I think people can tie themselves in knots looking for the true cause or intent. I'm not sure it matters or even exists in any way that matters.
- mikkergp 4y agoSocial media has certainly bastardized this, but I think healthy behavior is often dependent on your natural instincts. If your instinct is towards virtue signaling, then advertising your genuine random act of kindness for the clout is probably bad. But I'm shy and don't value social media clout. It then morally to me seems that despite the fact that you may judge me for advertising my "random acts of kindness" I should do it anyways, because if I inspire someone else to do said good act, I maximize the good in the world, even if it is a reputational hit to myself or I am embarrassed to do so. This seems compatible with the kingdom of ends, even if it is oppositional to what I see as the general interpretation of it, which is to do the best good, it must be done in private. Anyways I guess in the spirit of this, I make micro-loans on Kiva (https://www.kiva.org/ https://www.kiva.org/) and you should too ;-). Or take this time to donate to whatever cause you're passionate about.
- cwkoss 4y agoin the words of everlast: 'some people will rob their mother, for the ends'
- TameAntelope 4y agoMeh, virtue displays that still help people are fine by me. I don't think this really helped anyone, but "dehumanizing" is an overreaction, IMO. "Mildly annoying" is probably the more accurate term.
- wahern 4y agoWords like "dehumanizing" and "trauma" have lost their meaning. I was listening to an NPR program a few weeks ago discussing the Uvalde massacre where the speakers described the Uvalde families as being "traumatized" while also describing themselves (the speakers) as being "traumatized" by the online political debates over gun rights. They very briefly caught themselves, and at one point of them briefly, self-consciously excused themselves (something like, "not [traumatized] like the Ulvalde families"). Yet they continued (I lost count how many times) using and relishing in the word as a descriptor for their experience of the debates. It's absurd and surreal, and yet here we are. People think they're being empathetic by applying these words more widely but it's really reflective of how disconnected people are from reality, and how much narcissistic license they've given themselves. Social media gives people an illusion that they're connected to others, but the effect has mostly been to turn the vast majority of people and issues into caricatures. One might even say it's "dehumanizing", but what's the point. A decade or two ago the word for criticizing the TikTok video would have been "objectifying". That word got overused, too, but it still had academic connotations (from the feministic movement) that better contextualized the point someone was making. Sadly the political left PC movement has created such an arms race in linguistic virtue signaling that more precise, descriptive language is considered lacking in empathy and therefore, well, "dehumanizing".
- t_mann 4y agoBeautifully said.