Philosophy Now Forum

Ricky Gervais's controversial speech at the Golden Globes (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sR6UeVptzRg)
Consensus seems to be that entertainers do significantly influence our public conceptions of ethics. Is this a legitimate role for them to assume?

Do entertainers significantly influence our conception of ethics or is it that ours simply coincide with theirs without any obvious influence ?
Now only someone who shares the same ethics as said entertainers can actually answer this question but does that apply to any one here ?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jan 10, 2020 3:20 pm Ricky Gervais's controversial speech at the Golden Globes (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sR6UeVptzRg)
Consensus seems to be that entertainers do significantly influence our public conceptions of ethics. Is this a legitimate role for them to assume?

He was spot on in his analysis.

I think entertainers believe they have a significant influence, but it seems to me they just parrot, just mimic. These hollow men and women get paid to fill themselves up with other people's thinkin'. They don't lead or influence so much as act as mouthpieces.

It's less about their legitimacy and more about 'am I gonna listen to them?' They get to speak their minds, but I'm not obligated to listen.

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 10, 2020 4:01 pm Do entertainers significantly influence our conception of ethics or is it that ours simply coincide with theirs without any obvious influence ?
Now only someone who shares the same ethics as said entertainers can actually answer this question but does that apply to any one here ?

Good question. As the saying goes, "Correspondence is not causality": just because two things are the same doesn't mean for sure that one caused the other.

At the same time, correspondence exists in any place where causality genuinely exists. So maybe the correspondence between public and celebrity values, where such appears, is not merely accidental.

But if such correspondence does exist, in some cases, is it now becoming more the case that public morals are increasingly and legitimately diverging from celebrity-backed values, as Gervais suggests? For he suggests that the celebrities are nuts...ignorant...uneducated...out of touch...and even morally hypocritical...and hence, can legitimately be disregarded by the public as sources of moral information.

There may be an assumption on the part of many that if someones art is appreciated their world view should be too
But this is a false dichotomy because the two are mutually independent and so should not be connected in any way
One can make a connection if one really wants to but there is no logical reason as to why this is actually necessary

Actors have (what's left of) free speech just like anyone else. They tend to be fairly intelligent people, but they (American ones at least) also tend to be infuriatingly PC, constantly fretting about their 'image' and future work prospects. If they say anything even faintly unPC they get crucified on social media by the moronic, slobbering great unwashed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JaC1-U8LIY0

I just wish Bill Maher knew what the word 'liberal' means. Even reasonably intelligent yanks are illiterate

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Fri Jan 10, 2020 7:16 pm Even reasonably intelligent yanks are illiterate

Illiterate, but increasingly technologically savvy.

democratic double speak

-Imp

I was sad after listening to Ricky make his troublesome and troubled statements at the GG. It wasn't funny, charming or philosophically-minded. It takes a lot to shake up that crowd but Ricky sure managed to, barely trying, it seemed. I still like him. Comedians are always complicated when the obligatory smile is removed.