The debate "It is better to save the life of a celebrity than that of a normal person" was started by
February 22, 2020, 9:21 pm.
17 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 74 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
diecinueve posted 3 arguments, Nemiroff posted 2 arguments, Allirix posted 4 arguments to the agreers part.
JDAWG9693 posted 1 argument, Nemiroff posted 4 arguments, Allirix posted 1 argument, Joshua_Sinkala29 posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
diecinueve, Allirix, Joshua_Sinkala29 and 14 visitors agree.
saumyajain27, JDAWG9693, michelleb, Nemiroff, rainbowsocked, Oxalaia, Greetings, StrangeTime, eva_pet35, Joshua_Moris29, civilizeddiscussion, crazy_troglodyte, Joelm, tyler0300 and 60 visitors disagree.
celebrities also have the right to live, and letting them die would cause more harm than letting a normal person die
Because those have the right to live
What kind of STUPID topic is this? How RIDICULOUS!
If the only difference between the death of a normal person and a death of a celebrity is that 2,000 people don't do the equivalent of spill an ice cream then it should be your duty to save the 2,000 people from spilling their ice cream.
i guess another way to put it is that the tiny sadness fans who slightly remember old celebrities is meaningless. how quickly is that sadness forgotten? shall we debate the sadness of spilled ice cream? the loss of the person is definitely a tradgedy, not diminishing that. but the sadness of masses who mostly forgot about that person until a headline shows up about their passing, and then forget about them again the next day is insignficant. akin to the spilled icecream.
for the sadness to weigh in on a life or death decision, it must break a certain threshold. someone, or even millions, being slightly inconvenienced is irrelevant. sure they also do have family members and loved ones, and those do count. but i dont think the world wide blink of an eye sadness should even register.
Yeah. So when presented with a celebrity and a normal person, if it is both a fact that the celebrity is less likely to be a parent, and your value is that parents are more valuable than non-parents, then you'd choose the non-celebrity. Otherwise you'd choose the celebrity because their death would have a larger impact on society.
If most celebrities are famous before 30, so statistically unlikely to be a parent, then I'd agree with you. I'm not sure if that's true though since there are still a lot of celebrities with kids, and a lot of normal people without kids.
Plus fame does last to some degree. With an old celebrity there's the lost family member as well as the tiny impact their death has on everyone who remembers them.
well if they are celebrity in their youth, their parenthood to children not yet born doesnt really count for this aspect.
im running on the assumption that most celebrities are famous in their youth, thus statistically unlikely to be a parent. when they do eventually become parents, they are no longer celebrities.
Yeah I got that, but the only reason I can find for that to matter is if it is better to save a parent. You could be right that most celebrities have lost their celebrity status by the time they're parents, I wouldn't know, I just assume they have the same chances of being a parent as a normal person though.
but as i said, im getting into circumstantial nuance that is pretty far off topic.
thats not what i meant. i meant that fame is fleeting and most celebrities are not famous by the time they have children. im sure you can name many celebrities that retained their fame... but thats only because nobody remembers the ones that are forgotten... which is about 99%+
So it's better to save a parent than non-parent? Sure. I'm not sure that celebrities have fewer children than normal people though
I have already stated that I prefer to try my best to save a celebrity and a common person. If push comes to shove I think I would save a common person than a celebrity. Thank God that this is hypothetical.
although they have the same familial relationships, they dont often have familial relationships that depend on them like a young child. most stars are young and do not retain their fame into parenthood years. although now im getting into circumstancial nuance.
my knee jerk is to agree with jrardin, the downtrotten deserve more sympathy all other things being equal. however one does have to remove bias to realize both are still humans and popstars are not by default bad people, so cant judge them.
however the question asks if it is better to save a celebrity, therefore a disagree is not a statement to save the downtrotten, but a statement against celebrity preference. whether you want to save the normal guy, or place them both equal, disagree is the way to go.
So how it affects others doesn't bother you?
You're willing to let more people feel the pain of loss purely because you hold an ideology that the downtrodden are worth more than singers?
Maybe I prefer the downtrodden over someone who makes money for just singing.
In general, a celebrity still has the same familial relationships as everyone else though. It's not reasonable to presume Miley's dad loves her less than your dad loves you. You've just made an argument for why the death of a hobo with no close family relationships would be worth less than an average person.
We know these events are rare, that's why it's an hypothetical.
What is your reason for saving the hobo instead of Miley?
not all suffering is equal. a million fans who will forget all about the star in a few years is nothing compared to a child losing a parent, even if no one else knows that parent exists.
just curious, was there a decision made regarding people who are famous for more consequential reasons? like peace makers?
you would make more people suffer by letting an actor die than a hoboe
Well I would save a hoboe over Miley Cyrus any day or over any movies actor or even most sports people. But I still think that situations of save one or the other are anomolies and most of the time both would be able to be saved.
This is an example of an ethical dilemma where we need to choose between two different lives. No one disagrees that all lives are worth saving, but if you could only save 1 of the 2 lives who would you choose? The random or the celebrity? If you think the random should be saved, why? If you think their lives are equal would you just flip a coin and ignore the utilitarian argument?
Because when someone is popular more people will be negatively impacted by their death. If it impacts more people, then more suffering is created by her death. If more people are damaged by it then stopping that death helps more people than stoppong the death of someone who hurts less people. That's the utilitarian argument.
People are only popular because we choose to make them popular. Why should we prefer one person over another just because we make someone popular.
Although, since far more people have heard of her, her death is more likely to have a bigger impact on society than a random no one has heard of. Could there be a utilitarian argument to save her over a random?
All lives are worth saving.
Depends on what kind of celebrity. If it's a successful scientist or a random person, it would be better to save the scientist. But, if it's a random person or Jennifer Lawrence; I would saw Jennifer Lawrence is a random person, y'know? Just a random person that we've heard of.