I'd also argue it does harm because people see those videos and vicariously feel like a good person not helping them.
That is a real problem that's hard to combat, but that's a problem bigger than this one dilemma. Its a major flaw in the human mind.
For example, half the people here who quote the Bible do nothing but repeat verses over and over to justify things they wanted to do. This makes them feel like a good person, so they don't go out and volunteer or give to charity or do any of the parts they don't want to do. Just acting holier than the sinful masses fulfills their need to feel like a good person and then they don't do anything further.
Not to put that label on you because I don't know your life, but its just as bad on this side of the "glory to God" aisle as it is over there.
others get the dopamine hit of feeling like good people as they watch it so they themselves don't go out and help or give
The balance here is that how much will their cumulative help equal to compared to the one? For a lot of guys like Mr. Beast if their charity was true, it would equal to more overall people helped than probably their entire audience combined both in terms of willingness to do (most of them wouldn't do shit regardless, let's be honest) and monetary accumulation (5$ to a dozen charities goes nowhere as far as 60$ to one).
To bring it all together, its a question of "do you want the most people helped?" Some argue utilitarian and that helping people is the number one goal. This isn't a case of justifying committing evil to justify a good end, its impure intentions creating one.
Probably only marginally more impure than someone who goes out and volunteers/helps just because it'll make him look better to God and feel good about what a good Christian they are. Because even if you never let anyone know you did it, that is the mindset and to pretend otherwise is to assign godly perfection to flawed humans.
Vanity has preceded virtue. Before social media, people actually had to do good to become recognised in their community. The same dopamine hit can now be achieved though receiving 'likes' on posts with little to no value.
Before social media, people actually had to do good to become recognised in their community.
Nah, every community had at least one person whose entire persona was being seen as the most moral and given the most attention but they were never doing it for anything but vanity.
HOAs existing is a testament to that fact, but every church in America has that one middle aged woman whose entire life is being a busybody and getting asspats for "doing the right thing" as she gives nothing of value beyond causing drama.
Social media has made it more widespread because its easier to do now, but its a common human failing and has been so for as long as we have been able to think.
It has. One of the best benefits of things like religion historically is helping contain the worst traits of humanity or at least help channel them into positive results, such as letting a narcissist get accolades for helping the power even if he only did it to get praised.
That is a real problem that's hard to combat, but that's a problem bigger than this one dilemma. Its a major flaw in the human mind.
For example, half the people here who quote the Bible do nothing but repeat verses over and over to justify things they wanted to do. This makes them feel like a good person, so they don't go out and volunteer or give to charity or do any of the parts they don't want to do. Just acting holier than the sinful masses fulfills their need to feel like a good person and then they don't do anything further.
Not to put that label on you because I don't know your life, but its just as bad on this side of the "glory to God" aisle as it is over there.
The balance here is that how much will their cumulative help equal to compared to the one? For a lot of guys like Mr. Beast if their charity was true, it would equal to more overall people helped than probably their entire audience combined both in terms of willingness to do (most of them wouldn't do shit regardless, let's be honest) and monetary accumulation (5$ to a dozen charities goes nowhere as far as 60$ to one).
To bring it all together, its a question of "do you want the most people helped?" Some argue utilitarian and that helping people is the number one goal. This isn't a case of justifying committing evil to justify a good end, its impure intentions creating one.
Probably only marginally more impure than someone who goes out and volunteers/helps just because it'll make him look better to God and feel good about what a good Christian they are. Because even if you never let anyone know you did it, that is the mindset and to pretend otherwise is to assign godly perfection to flawed humans.
Vanity has preceded virtue. Before social media, people actually had to do good to become recognised in their community. The same dopamine hit can now be achieved though receiving 'likes' on posts with little to no value.
Nah, every community had at least one person whose entire persona was being seen as the most moral and given the most attention but they were never doing it for anything but vanity.
HOAs existing is a testament to that fact, but every church in America has that one middle aged woman whose entire life is being a busybody and getting asspats for "doing the right thing" as she gives nothing of value beyond causing drama.
Social media has made it more widespread because its easier to do now, but its a common human failing and has been so for as long as we have been able to think.
Yes, that's better put. Social media has become a gateway drug to those susceptible to narcissism :)
It has. One of the best benefits of things like religion historically is helping contain the worst traits of humanity or at least help channel them into positive results, such as letting a narcissist get accolades for helping the power even if he only did it to get praised.