You’re right, maybe not the best descriptor, but it’s a hard concept to properly articulate.
Man with money finds people in need and gives them a dump truck of cash to ostensibly make their lives better. Paying for surgeries for people, buying meals for the hungry, etc. is an “ethical” alternative to paying homeless people to fight each other for entertainment. But it doesn’t change the fact that it is still exploitative content that commodifies the suffering of others for his own enrichment. Doing the right thing for the wrong reasons. I can’t help but think he would hardly be so “generous” if he was losing more than he was getting out of it.
Not to mention he is being lionized as this capitalist success story to show that the system works, absolving the wealthy of guilt, while his success is entirely based around the fact that capitalism is failing the majority who live under it. And all of the feel-good narratives just make it easier to ignore all of the people he hasn’t helped.
And now that he’s made himself into a brand, he can leverage that brand to hawk overpriced, moldy food and grow even richer. And people out there are buying his brand because they believe it somehow supports a better cause than buying the overpriced, not-as-moldy food from the corporation he’s competing with.
If he wants to live ethically, he should be losing money until he is reduced down to his own level of need. Mr. Beast is supposedly a Christian and that is what the ethics of that religion dictate. In an ideal economy, people shouldn’t be able to hoard wealth either.
One just needs to ask why he stops where he does with his giving, and why not go further to do more good if that’s supposed to be the point? Or why not use that money to stop these problems at the source rather than just providing temporary aid to a tiny subset of victims?
You’re right, maybe not the best descriptor, but it’s a hard concept to properly articulate.
Man with money finds people in need and gives them a dump truck of cash to ostensibly make their lives better. Paying for surgeries for people, buying meals for the hungry, etc. is an “ethical” alternative to paying homeless people to fight each other for entertainment. But it doesn’t change the fact that it is still exploitative content that commodifies the suffering of others for his own enrichment. Doing the right thing for the wrong reasons. I can’t help but think he would hardly be so “generous” if he was losing more than he was getting out of it.
Not to mention he is being lionized as this capitalist success story to show that the system works, absolving the wealthy of guilt, while his success is entirely based around the fact that capitalism is failing the majority who live under it. And all of the feel-good narratives just make it easier to ignore all of the people he hasn’t helped.
And now that he’s made himself into a brand, he can leverage that brand to hawk overpriced, moldy food and grow even richer. And people out there are buying his brand because they believe it somehow supports a better cause than buying the overpriced, not-as-moldy food from the corporation he’s competing with.
He wouldn’t be able to do it if he was losing money though.
It’s such a tricky subject.
If you don’t use it to make money you can’t do it anymore.
So is making money off it bad if you use that money to doore.
If he wants to live ethically, he should be losing money until he is reduced down to his own level of need. Mr. Beast is supposedly a Christian and that is what the ethics of that religion dictate. In an ideal economy, people shouldn’t be able to hoard wealth either.
One just needs to ask why he stops where he does with his giving, and why not go further to do more good if that’s supposed to be the point? Or why not use that money to stop these problems at the source rather than just providing temporary aid to a tiny subset of victims?