He is an evil individual who fails to address systemic issues or assist people for their own benefit.
As a game show host, he humiliates and exploits participants, boasting about his own virtues without any regard for the contestants.
Examples:
- https://youtu.be/9RhWXPcKBI8
- https://youtu.be/tnTPaLOaHz8
- https://youtu.be/gHzuabZUd6c
- https://youtu.be/DuQbOQwVaNE
I believe legal intervention is necessary to limit his actions towards people and prevent him from exploiting them for personal gain.
Quick note: while I believe that results of some of his videos is good ( which he did to show how good of a person he is), that does not change the facts about his evil videos, the same way bezoz donations does not make him a good person.
I think we’re getting to the crux of the argumet. The concept of “net good”.
OP has done nothing positive for these people that need help, but also nothing negative = net good of zero
If someone offers the people that need help (Gross Good) if they participate in an activity you don’t agree (Gross bad) the outcome could very well be = net good being positive. Meaning there is more good than bad, so the end result is good being done.
From what I understand (again, I’m not a Mr. Beast follower), all involved are doing so voluntarily and meaning they believe the activities they’re participating in are not negative enough and they are benefiting in the end, that sounds like a net good. Now if you’re making an argument about “integrity” or “humiliation” I’d question whether we have a position to raise these when the folks receiving the needed help have rent paid or full stomachs.
In other words, its easy for us (who aren’t giving any money to help) to criticism some that is, in some fashion, giving money to people that need it.
“net good” is about as morally sound as saying you can’t criticize multi hundred millionaires (i.e. obscenely rich people) for having that much money and not spending 99%+ on helping people. I don’t know enough about Mr beast to criticize him myself but I wanted to point out that your arguments are either not in good faith or rooted in logical fallacies and moral quandaries.
I’m not sure if you accidentally used a double negative. If it wasn’t accidental, we agree with one another.
I believe pragmatically that “net good” (any amount spent to help those that need it) is better than “zero good” (no amount spent to help those that need it). Do you agree with that or disagree?
Chiming in, I don’t agree in the general case that goodness and badness can be spent or converted, ie. saving two lives doesn’t give you license to kill someone random because the net good is positive. But in this case since all his actions are related per video the help he gives to people outweighs their voluntary (although coerced via incentive) participation and any of its negative effects, if any.
Of course not. We’re not talking about murder here, we’re talking about three possible outcomes: donating money, not donating money, and generating money and donating some of that money.
Agreed.