2 ms·

And many if not most celebrities happily and frequently turn down jobs to protect their reputations. And that is not only turning down reputable jobs, but jobs

by toss1 4y ago

And many if not most celebrities happily and frequently turn down jobs to protect their reputations. And that is not only turning down reputable jobs, but jobs for perfectly respectable businesses, because they don't want to sell out. I was literally reading of one yesterday, where George Clooney turned down $35 million for a day’s work on an airline advertisement. Sure, they can almost always find someone willing to do the advert. But that does not absolve that person of the moral consequenses of doing the work. >>I would give a pass to any celebrity that was paid to be in advertisements. They are paid to make an appearance and say lines convincingly. The exact same moral structure can be said about this, even though it is an extreme example: "I would give a pass to any assassin that was paid to kill the targets. They are paid to accurately deliver lethal doses of bullets or toxins and ensure that the targets end up dead." Obviously, none of us would consider giving a pass to the assassin because it was a "professional paid job", even if (s)he was doing to feed his/her starving family. Why should we give a pass to the actors? While different levels and directness of harm, both are taking money to do harm to others. [0] https://www.huffpost.com/entry/george-clooney-35-million-one-day-work_n_61a9fb5ee4b0f398af1fc519 https://www.huffpost.com/entry/george-clooney-35-million-one...

mattbrewsbytes 4y ago
You're comparing murder to an actor speaking lines in a 30 second commercial. Its an advertisement and you are questioning people's morals. If any of the actors did any research they likely were convinced it was a solid thing to do at the time. It could have even been a "oh so-and-so is doing an ad, then I'm in" type of thing. Its pretty obvious whoever was involved at FTX was pretty convincing and doing wrong/illegal things behind the scenes so that's why I said they should get a pass.
- toss1 4y ago
  Thanks for changing your argument, and validating my point. Your first argument was that "...paid to be in advertisements. They are paid to make an appearance and say lines convincingly."; i.e., you justified it on the fact that they were paid professionals; the type of work doesn't matter and no judgement should be done. Now, you admit that there is indeed a moral/amoral issue in making advertisements, but argue that in this case the FTX players must have been good liars and the actors must have been fooled. Considering the actors to have reasonably vetted the thing as worthwhile & ethical, but having been fooled, is indeed a much better grounds to give someone a pass. Especially so for the celebs who also invested their own money and have now lost it. Of course the assassin example is extreme, I said so, and selected it because extremes can make the point more obvious. That makes it no less valid. I'm not questioning people's morals — I making obvious the foundational element that something being a "professional job" does not remove the actions from the sphere of moral judgement. Certainly the celebs who invested along with promoting the thing were also fooled. That does not mean that they were absolved of moral judgement because it was a professional job, but that they can indeed be judged and given a pass because they were also fooled. Sure, the end result of both is that they pass, but the reasoning matters. Your second argument is a good one in probably most cases; the first was not.

by toss1 4y ago

mattbrewsbytes 4y ago

You're comparing murder to an actor speaking lines in a 30 second commercial. Its an advertisement and you are questioning people's morals. If any of the actors did any research they likely were convinced it was a solid thing to do at the time. It could have even been a "oh so-and-so is doing an ad, then I'm in" type of thing. Its pretty obvious whoever was involved at FTX was pretty convincing and doing wrong/illegal things behind the scenes so that's why I said they should get a pass.

toss1 4y ago
Thanks for changing your argument, and validating my point. Your first argument was that "...paid to be in advertisements. They are paid to make an appearance and say lines convincingly."; i.e., you justified it on the fact that they were paid professionals; the type of work doesn't matter and no judgement should be done. Now, you admit that there is indeed a moral/amoral issue in making advertisements, but argue that in this case the FTX players must have been good liars and the actors must have been fooled. Considering the actors to have reasonably vetted the thing as worthwhile & ethical, but having been fooled, is indeed a much better grounds to give someone a pass. Especially so for the celebs who also invested their own money and have now lost it. Of course the assassin example is extreme, I said so, and selected it because extremes can make the point more obvious. That makes it no less valid. I'm not questioning people's morals — I making obvious the foundational element that something being a "professional job" does not remove the actions from the sphere of moral judgement. Certainly the celebs who invested along with promoting the thing were also fooled. That does not mean that they were absolved of moral judgement because it was a professional job, but that they can indeed be judged and given a pass because they were also fooled. Sure, the end result of both is that they pass, but the reasoning matters. Your second argument is a good one in probably most cases; the first was not.