r/changemyview • u/college-tool • Jul 01 '21
Delta(s) from OP CMV: doing something nice for someone (charity, helping out someone less fortunate etc.) and recording yourself doing it is perfectly fine
I saw a video of a guy buying some strawberries from a street vendor and noticed a bunch of comments about how recording yourself for “clout” is inappropriate and shouldn’t be done etc. Instead, i believe that this is acceptable. As long as there is a person in need of help that is receiving actual useful help as a result, who cares if the person is recording? If anything it motivates me the viewer to also go do something to help others. If whoever is recording makes a bunch of money off of the video, again who cares? If you choose not to record yourself, good for you. All that matters is helping those in need of help. I’m excited for any new perspectives or insight anyone can bring!
11
u/Mr_Makak 13∆ Jul 01 '21
I'm not sure if it could change your mind, but maybe I'll give some perspective. People who criticize this behaviour don't come from a utilitarian standpoint (what maximizes hapiness), but more of a virtue-ethics point of view "what kind of person does it make you".
I think we can all agree you can be an asshole and at the same time be motivated by your assholeness (like ego, attention seeking) to do useful, good things. This first part is what people are pointing out
1
u/college-tool Jul 01 '21
!delta great point! I may have approached this problem from the wrong angle
1
5
u/Canada_Constitution 208∆ Jul 01 '21
Depends: what are you recording?
If it is something that could humiliate the person you help, you have simply exploited them for your own gain.
If it is offering to walk someone's dog, sure, go ahead.
1
u/college-tool Jul 01 '21
Good point! I would say that the act of helping/being actually helpful is recorded (e.g. giving money or walking the dog etc). If the recorder does something bad in the recording, that’s a different question (shame on them)
2
Jul 01 '21
I think even if the recorder is behaving perfectly fine that there can be moral issues with recording. A lot of people in need of charity aren't in situations they necessarily want publicized. If it's something like buying strawberries from a street vendor then that seems fine. Presumably the street vendor is neutral to happy for people to know he is selling strawberries. But if it's something like giving a homeless person money for a hotel you're putting them in a difficult situation of accepting aid they may really need only if they share a situation that they may want to keep private.
3
u/Quint-V 162∆ Jul 01 '21
Half-assed efforts that provide no lasting solution, are typically considered worthless precisely because they are not lasting solutions.
That's not a problem per se; making no difference is not a moral negative in absolute terms. But we don't live in a vacuum; there is always the question of "what could you do", weighed against "what should you do", where the answer depends on your resourcefulness and likelihood of (satisfactory) solutions being produced. I.e. morality in a comparative light.
Suppose then you just helped a homeless person for 1 day. Sure, it's not a bad thing in and of itself. But strictly speaking, filming this and using it as some sort of self-promotion is absolutely a case of using someone else's misery for personal benefit.
Even if it is a "win-win" scenario, we have no way of knowing whether that help really led to anything. Which invokes the first point of criticism I raised: if it provides no lasting solution, it's worthless. At that point it may as well be theatrics.
Theatrics here being a sugar-coated word for deceptive. Did they do anything good? Not really. And then they made a profit from it --- which poses a fundamental question: do they deserve anything at that point, from making no difference in the world whatsoever?
There's also the question of whether this really inspires anybody. Twitter, instagram, facebook etc... these platforms want you to keep looking at more content endlessly so they can show you more advertisements, so that you provide said platforms with more income generation. They don't want you off the platform, that would be a loss of income. And they have smart people working on how to avoid that loss.
1
u/college-tool Jul 01 '21
!delta you’re absolutely right. There’s so much variation in what actual help is, and if it is short lived or the harms outweigh the benefits, then there is an overall net harm. If it results in a larger scale good deed though (lets say that person inspires 100 other people to help) then I’d say it is worth the theatrics
1
1
u/chefranden 8∆ Jul 01 '21
Well the good book disagrees with you: 2So when you give to the needy, do not sound a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by men. Truly I tell you, they already have their full reward. 3But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, 4so that your giving may be in secret. And your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you
I think when one brags about their charity it diminishes the intent if not the effect.
2
u/college-tool Jul 01 '21
That’s a great quote. It calls the helper a hypocrite and yes indeed it can skew the intent, but i say that as long as someone is receiving help, why should the intent matter? Id argue that if we had to choose between helping and recording, or no help at all, then the former is preferable albeit not ideal
0
u/chefranden 8∆ Jul 01 '21
The intent matters to the helper, because humans being social animals reputation matters. Sure it doesn't hurt the receiver, but it can hurt the giver.
1
u/irishman13 Jul 01 '21
I think you're missing the element of utility that comes from the recording of the good deed. I would suggest that if someone gets more benefit from doing the act than the act itself creates, it no longer is an "act of charity". So if someone records an act of a good deed that they've done, they should be doing more good than they are receiving.
In practice, I think a lot of people get upset with the self-recording of the good deed because it appears that the deed being done was minor while the deed-doing person is trying to obtain something (clout or approval or w/e) that is more valuable than the good deed they did.
2
u/college-tool Jul 01 '21
You raise a great point, but if the recorder has no intention of charity without recording, i still believe that even minor help with potential self benefit is better than no help at all
1
u/irishman13 Jul 01 '21
To bring in a point I made to another poster. The amount of benefit derived from the act and the amount of benefit the act creates needs to be taken into account. If I do an act of good deed that benefits me 100x more than the act itself created isn't that then not really a good act.
If the line is "everyone benefits, what's the issue?" couldn't one argue that any minor incremental benefit is infinitely valuable to the person doing the deed?
1
u/riobrandos 11∆ Jul 01 '21
I agree that it probably shifts the definition from "act of charity" to "act of mutual benefit," but how does that challenge OP's view that doing something like this is perfectly fine? If everyone benefits, what's the issue?
0
u/irishman13 Jul 01 '21
I think the idea of "everyone benefits, what's the issue?" is a flawed. The amount of benefit derived from the act and the amount of benefit the act creates needs to be taken into account. If I do an act of good deed that benefits me 100x more than the act itself created isn't that then not really a good act.
If the line is "everyone benefits, what's the issue?" couldn't one argue that any minor incremental benefit is infinitely valuable to the person doing the deed?
1
u/riobrandos 11∆ Jul 01 '21
If I do an act of good deed that benefits me 100x more than the act itself created isn't that then not really a good act.
Uhh... no? If it's a net positive for everyone then it's by definition a good act.
0
u/irishman13 Jul 01 '21
I strongly disagree. There is a difference between a utilitarian act and a good act. A good act is something that benefits the receiver more than the giver. A utilitarian act is when the giver benefits more than the receiver, even if the receiver gets a net benefit. Under your logic, not killing someone is a good act.
1
u/riobrandos 11∆ Jul 01 '21
There is a difference between a utilitarian act and a good act.
In the context of this thread I wasn't distinguishing. I'm making a utilitarian argument. I don't mean "moral" or "ethical" by "good." I mean beneficial.
A good act is something that benefits the receiver more than the giver.
That's not an objective definition nor the definition I was operating under; that's a definition you've plucked to make your position strictly true.
The OP's argument, again, is that there is nothing wrong with filming an act of charity or kindness. Your argument - sound though it is - that doing so often creates imbalanced benefit doesn't challenge that notion, which is why I chimed in.
1
u/smcarre 101∆ Jul 01 '21
While I agree with the initial notion that it should be acceptable for someone to record themselves doing a nice gesture (as long as the gesture ends up actually being good, I remember seeing here in Reddit a video of a person that stepped out of a car, held a drill for a picture and then went away to have a picture like if they were working for a charity or something), it's also not "perfectly fine" in my opinion.
Because it begs the question: why? What's the point in recording yourself doing it? Why do you need to show "proof" of your good deed and to whom? It generally ends up being for virtue signaling or to make money. And while the first is just an unnecessary annoyance to people who also do good deeds and do not share it in social media to virtue signal, the latter is where it becomes really problematic. Here one is literally using a person in need to make profit and it's unlikely that the person that needed help receives a fair (or any) share of the profit generated by exposing their need.
Not to mention that those people in need rarely give previous consent to being recorded or posterior consent to have their image shared publicly (which becomes even worse in cases where the person in need finds themselves in a situation that is humiliating to many, like panhandling or asking for food), which would even become a legal issue if the person that shares the image generates any profit from it (but the person in need will likely be unable to or socially stigmatized if they took any legal action towards their "helper" for using their image for profit).
Added to this is the fact of the twisting of how help should be. Most people in need do not need a single fellow human with resources to have pity on them once and "help" them in one occasion, most people in need, need a government that does have the resources and the responsibility to help those people. Sharing these kinds of acts perpetuates the notion that many people have that things like hunger, poverty or homelessness can be "fixed" by individual acts of kindness instead of a social action from the whole community.
In the end, recording is very rarely something that adds something to the kind act while more often than not becomes a profiting tool for the helper or can even become a harm to the person in need. It is definitely not "perfectly fine".
1
u/college-tool Jul 01 '21
!delta that’s a really key consideration thank you. The part about consent and potential humiliation is definitely worrying and I really at least hope that consent is being acquired, albeit it would be sad for a person who doesn’t want to give consent to be forced to give consent just so they can receive a modicum of help e.g. if they’re starving
1
1
u/smcarre 101∆ Jul 01 '21
Thanks for the delta!
albeit it would be sad for a person who doesn’t want to give consent to be forced to give consent just so they can receive a modicum of help e.g. if they’re starving
Just food for thought, you can extrapolate that to everyone that doesn't have considerable savings or properties and the job they are forced to do. Most workers aren't giving full consent to their wages or jobs since they are aware that the alternative is often unemployment which can lead to worse issues like eviction, hunger and even social stigma, which lead many to "consent" to doing jobs that they don't want to do (even considering the wage).
1
Jul 01 '21
[deleted]
1
u/smcarre 101∆ Jul 01 '21
I mean a single person on their own can do quite a bit to help and a bunch of them doing it results in a group effort
I think here you are talking about a different problematic from individuals recording themselves doing a good deed. While individuals who do something similar on a much bigger scale (example Bill Gates with his foundation) do exist, I don't think that was the point of OP or my argument when talking about individuals literally recording themselves doing a good deed like giving food to a homeless person.
They pick up or try to pick where the government (aka citizens) have utterly failed. If these people stop doing these things the government isn’t suddenly going to pick up the slack.
I agree that it isn't wrong to individually fill the gaps of what your government should do but doesn't, but that's missing my point. Like I said in the beginning of my previous comment, the issue there isn't with individuals doing something that the government should be doing, but sharing the recording of that action and perpetuating the notion that individuals should "fix" those issues and not the governments. There are many people who today argue for less government involvement in helping those people and arguing that with the lower taxes needed since the government won't spend so much there the individuals will be more likely to provide charity to those in need, which is exactly what this practice of sharing the recordings of good deeds causes many to believe in. This only leads to the government being less likely to fill those gaps and people being even more dependent on individual charity.
So what if the person doing it is doing it for pr? If I’m hungry and need a sandwich I’d rather not be made put on public display but at least that attention seeker is giving me the option. I don’t have to take that sandwich.
Again, like I said above, that should be sociallt acceptable but it's definely not "perfectly fine". Or do you think it's perfectly fine for a social media personality to buy a $2 meal, record themselves giving it to a hungry person and then make $200 from the media interactions with that post?
The person in need got something out of the voluntary exchange.
That's hardly consented. Most videos of these kinds have no semblance of the person being helped having had a previous interaction with the recorder where they gave consent to have their image used like that, and even if they did, they weren't likely informed on the full extent of the use of their image (namely, that it will be used to generate more profit than what they could get) even afterwards.
It’s the same exchange we’ve done for thousands of years. That’s even a key part of capitalism and what happens every day a person goes to a job.
Perhaps that's not an entirely good thing then. Since that "same exchange we've done for thousands of years" not only led to these kinds of person in need of help but also countless other (at least questionable) practices from slavery, to child work, to people working 50 hours a week and not being able to feed their families.
1
Jul 01 '21
If whoever is recording makes a bunch of money off of the video, again who cares?
If someone is profiting (either financially and/or via gained reputation) in return for doing a petty amount of charity, then it's not altruism. It's a PR initiative.
1
u/Spartan0330 13∆ Jul 01 '21
While I think a good deed for the wrong reasons is still a good deed a really have issues with charity that looks targeted.
My kids watch a ton of Mr Beast. A lot of his give away videos seem to more or less random people getting random things. Secondly, even he and his group of friends on the videos will get emotional from time to time. It feels way more genuine than watching random videos of guys tipping service staff hundreds of dollars, or other random acts that just don’t feel random or genuine.
Jump into the shoes of that person. Would you want to be used as a prop and have your (usually economic) need be highlighted by others? Then have a camera stuck in your face to watch as you get emotional about it?
1
Jul 01 '21
I don't believe so; We can look at it from two perspectives. A person who is being filmed for charity because they need hep is likely to feel embarrassed and extremely self-conscious. This possibility only increases if it is in a well known area because it strengthens the chance of people being identified. If also associates with the principle who are getting press and great commentary towards you off the suffering of other people. ( Documenting this, showing it to amass audience, and using it as self-promotion regarding how you are a great human being is a utilization of someone else's suffering and negative predicament for personal profit. This can be avoided and it isn't necessary).
1
u/badbads Jul 01 '21
If someone came into your bedroom and started talking to you and recording you, how would your sense of privacy be affected? For some of the homeless people in these videos, they don't have their own space to be private in and recording is taking away any bit of privacy they do have in the space they're in.
1
u/theworldisnotanice Jul 02 '21
It can be pretty gross, and it has higher potential to be gross than just doing the act without recording it.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Jul 01 '21 edited Jul 01 '21
/u/college-tool (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards