Chapter 1: Introduction to Ethical Theories

In recent years, the internet has been flooded with influencers and celebrities performing charitable acts. From YouTubers providing meals to impoverished communities to TikTok creators generously donating to the homeless, these clips gain traction and spread rapidly across various platforms.

At first glance, these recordings appear harmless, showcasing individuals doing good for others, especially since many viewers seem to agree with the positive sentiment. However, for every few uplifting comments, there are critiques questioning the motives behind these actions.

Critics argue that these public figures are capitalizing on their charitable acts for personal gain. Comments often express that if these individuals genuinely wished to assist others, they wouldn’t feel the need to film their efforts. Some even go as far as labeling such acts as self-serving, suggesting that these influencers might not have extended a helping hand if there were no camera present.

The same scrutiny applies to large donations made by celebrities. It raises the question of whether a celebrity’s altruism is genuinely philanthropic or merely a means to enhance their public image. Should we consider the intentions behind these good deeds? Does filming a charitable act diminish its value? Additionally, does it matter if a celebrity donates to feel better about themselves rather than from a place of genuine compassion? The answers to these inquiries are as varied as the ethical philosophies that inform them.

This article will delve into several ethical frameworks, including Kantian deontology, Benthamite utilitarianism, and Buddhist mindfulness, culminating with a look at William James's pragmatism.

As we continue, let’s consider a hypothetical scenario: a celebrity stands at the front of a shelter, flanked by cameras and reporters, announcing a hefty donation while boasting about their success.

Exploring Good Deeds in the Age of Social Media

Chapter 2: Ethical Perspectives on Charitable Actions

During the announcement, the celebrity claims, “I have achieved great success over the past year.” Responses in the crowd range from admiration to disappointment as he continues to explain how he has chosen to give back through a significant donation.

While applause erupts, a Kantian and a Buddhist in the audience exhibit discontent. Michael Schur, in his book How to be Perfect, discusses similar scenarios, referencing Buddhist monk Thich Nhat Hanh, who emphasized mindfulness and the importance of being present in one's actions without seeking recognition.

Hanh’s philosophy encourages a selfless approach to good deeds, where the act of giving is not tainted by the desire for fame or accolades. Schur notes that when we allow our actions to be influenced by the need for recognition, they lose their inherent goodness.

This perspective suggests that the celebrity’s intentions detract from the value of their donation.

What would a Kantian philosopher say about this scenario?

Kant’s deontological ethics posits that moral actions must be motivated by duty to universal maxims rather than personal gain. The Kantian viewpoint would critique the celebrity for acting out of self-interest rather than a genuine commitment to helping others.

The Kantian would argue, “While the action is commendable, it is rooted in a desire for self-satisfaction rather than a moral obligation to assist others. This approach reduces the act to merely a means to an end.”

Next, the conversation shifts to the utilitarian perspective.

Utilitarianism promotes the idea that actions are right if they produce the greatest good for the greatest number. A utilitarian may assert that the financial assistance provided by the celebrity will benefit many, thus justifying their actions regardless of intent.

“That donation will support numerous individuals in need,” they might say. “And it brings happiness to the donor as well, making it a net positive.”

This stance is perplexing to the Kantian and Buddhist, as it implies that the motivations behind an act may be irrelevant if the outcome is beneficial.

The Pragmatic Approach to Ethics

Chapter 3: The Role of Pragmatism in Ethical Discourse

Pragmatism offers a unique lens through which to analyze this ethical dilemma. According to William James, if two ethical theories yield the same results, the differences between them become insignificant.

“If the outcomes are identical, then the discussion is moot,” he suggests.

From this pragmatic perspective, whether one acts out of a sense of duty, altruism, or even self-interest, the crucial factor remains the impact of the action—namely, that those in need receive assistance.

Thus, while intentions differ among the Kantian, Buddhist, and utilitarian viewpoints, the outcome remains constant: the donation aids those who require support.

In conclusion, the philosophical debate surrounding ethical actions is intricate and multifaceted. Pragmatism serves as a practical tool, urging us to focus on the consequences of our actions while carefully considering the motivations behind them.

If you appreciate this exploration of ethics and wish to support my work, consider joining Medium as a member through my referral link! You’ll gain unlimited access to stories on the platform, and a portion of your membership fee will support my writing efforts.