401–410 of 634 posts
Quoted post unavailable.
I love how you think you can read other people's minds.
> Everyone knows the reason she’s up in arms about..
Sorry to break it to you but not everyone is making random assumptions about people they have never met in their real life.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn'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?
In other words, morality is relative to intent. I think the jury is still out on that. Our planet has seen its fair share of saviors, liberators, purifiers, improvers of all sorts. And they've left us with a culture rich in clichés and aphorisms that teach us that although you can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs and the ends will eventually justify the means, the roads to hell remain paved with good int…
On the flip side, consequentialism can justify all sorts of actions that are objectionable in other moral frameworks. Machiavelli isn’t usually thought of as a bastion of morality, and he coined the phrase “the ends justify the means”.
The best answer is probably somewhere in between, but I think many people prefer simple to nuanced answers.
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
Isn'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?
Intent and Outcome are important in other moral philosophies, but for Kant these were hypothetical imperatives: Nothing more than mere whishes, nothing concrete.
For him, moral philosophy should be based on concrete, testable tenets, which have to be unconditionally true (categorical) and are always required (imperative).
While one might disagree with that worldview, Kant's work on this kind of moral philosophy was so comprehensive and - quite franky - logically sound, that to this very day any deontological philosopher or moral theory is still called "Kantian" or in "Kantian tradition"...
To come back to your question: While dismissing intent and outcome can be seen as a limitation of Kant's view, it also provides a very strong logical underpinning for the whole philosophy. Of all the moral philosophies, it's the one based most on pure reasoning.
Of course, it qickly breaks down when pitting two moral wrongs against each other (ratting out innocents vs. lying to state forces, various trolley problems etc.), but any moral system seems to get in trouble in these kind of situations.
I am glad that filming someone here (Switzerland) without consent is not legal even in public. You can film in public but if a person is the center attention in your footage it becomes illegal and you need their consent especially if you publish it. Only exceptions are large public events where privacy can not be expected. Same goes for identifiable information like license plates. For example if you film a parking l…
How do you determine if someone is "the center of attention"? Could someone record ultra high res video using an ultra wide lens, then privately crop the video at will?
I don't know about Switzerland specifically, but usually the restriction on this kind of right is on distribution/publication.
Quoted post unavailable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It'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.
Virtue signalling is a term made up by a hard right libertarian propagandist writing for the spectator as a means of silencing progressive voices online. It’s a bullshit term for which we already had a perfectly good word: hypocrisy
And all terms are made up, and the political leanings of the person who supposedly coined the phrase is irrelevant to its applicability.
Quoted post unavailable.
Good for her for speaking up and shame on you for your misogynistic and conceited attempt to speak for her.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So much of the content I see now on TikTok and other apps is totally staged, and quite often poorly staged at that. It would be interesting to know who funds the production of many of the videos, because there's obviously an advertising scheme or some sort of moneymaking ploy behind a lot of it. I think things really took off with the people who were making "gold-digger" videos, where a guy tries to talk to a girl an…
It's interesting how you're complaining about so much content being staged. I much prefer that this type of content is staged. The alternative appears to be harassing random strangers like the case in the article. With staged content the only victim is the duped audience who can always just not watch TikTok.
The internet is so full of hatred and vitriol. I had to leave Instagram because I couldn't stand the constant political diatribes, gotcha-style quotes and clips, etc. It just brought so much negativity into my life, and I'm much happier without seeing it anymore.
I do see the point[0] that this video is more of a virtue display than a random act of kindness. But, I think the real point of the video is to make viewers happy when they watch it, and I think that's a good thing, even if the creator has some sort of profit motive behind it.
The creator was wrong to lie to the woman about being filmed. He forced her into a situation where she felt patronized and dehumanized. He could've deleted the video and done it to the next person he saw, who maybe wouldn't have felt the same way and would've wanted to participate.
But that doesn't mean that this type of content is vile and disgusting as a category, just because it's not a "true random act of kindness." A lot of us want to see content that just, well, feels nice.
I sort of feel compelled to quote the Bible here, though I'm not religious. "So when you give to the needy, do not sound a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do ... to be honored by men. Truly I tell you, they already have their full reward. 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. And your Father, who sees what is done in s…
This is an interesting passage. I fully support the message, that giving done in secret is more valuable than equivalent giving done for public acclaim, but for a believer, it seems like it leaves the same basic moral philosophical question open. Instead of giving publicly to receive an extrinsic reward, instead you should give in secret to receive a different but still extrinsic reward. Of course, a non-believer don…
Consider also the story of the Good Samaritan: Jesus tells the story of a person who goes out of his way to help someone in need. He incurs risk (helping the man meant risking getting caught in an ambush), expense (oil and wine for the wounds plus paying the innkeeper), and inconvenience (he had to interrupt his journey to help). Jesus tells us this is how we should treat our neighbor.
The Samaritan is also assuredly not Christian so isn’t doing this to gain eternal life in heaven through faith in Jesus. It’s pretty obvious and indisputable altruism.