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:

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.

  • partial_accumen
    3•4 months ago

    “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’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?

    • @Feathercrown@lemmy.world
      1•4 months ago

      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.

      • partial_accumen
        2•4 months ago

        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.

        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.

        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.

        Agreed.