 ouyangwulong says: The central question this poses is: did we do this to Brittney Spears? Isn't this somehow our fault? Spears poses an interesting challenge to this conventional interpretation of Kant. Consider this: it seem very clear now that Spears was merely a meat puppet, who's trials (both literal and figurative) and travails (mostly figurative) have destroyed her as a person. And to what ends? Nothing more than our temporary amusement, no doubt. The creation and destruction of Brittney Spears won't even provide long-term amusement, except maybe for later day insomniacs who watch VH1 20 years from now. But, did she not concent? Was not this devils bargain something she not only entered into fully appraised of the situation, but even sought it out? Didn't she get the life she wanted? (Albeit in a twisted and cruel way.) It seems Kant places too much confidence in people's rationality. We explained the ends to her and accepted it, but deep down didn't we all know something that s Consider this: it seem very clear now that Spears was merely a meatThe larger question is how many Brittney's have we all known in our lives OW? Kant's quote and philosphy are great and all...but in the end we all have our own minds and our own free will. That's one of the beautiful things about being human. In the end Ms. Spears needs to take responsibility for her own actions and people need to stop shielding her from the consequences of that. I think the US treats celebrity like other nations create dictators. We tell them that they can do anything, that they are more valuable than others, that other people are responsible for that person's actions. We suck up to them so we can benefit (status, money or staying alive) Then when they suddenly start believing it themselves, we stand horrified and offended. Having said that, I'm with KimbleKency. Ms. Spears has to own up to her responsibility and I hope a treatment center can get her clear-headed enough to understand that. She could have a chemical imbalance that led to her "crazies" but once medicated and clear-thinking, she is responsible for continued treatment, if only for the sake of her kids. KimbleKency, I think you are slightly misunderstanding Kant here, at least, from the way I see it. This isn't a question of what she is or isn't responsible for. In the end, she does need to be responsible for her actions, but that doesn't make what we're doing to her any less sleazy. I can't vindicate our exploitation of her misery on the basis of the fact that she is apparently a hideously irresponsible person. Do you see what a dangerous rationale that is? My concern is that in the age of impersonal communications and media such as television and tabloid news, we often dehumanize and objectify almost everyone who we don't have to look directly in the eye. I'm not defending Miss Spears,... I guess I misunderstood how you were posing the argument, as if "we" did this to her. In the end, no one did anything to Ms. Spears that she did not want to happen, or that she didn't stop from happening. I think it's human nature to look at other people's lives as if they're entertainment. Well maybe not entertainment, but from a distanced view. This happens whether someone is a celebrity or not. Whether it's right or not is debatable for some. I personally don't feel that way. I believe everyone deserves compassion and empathy, and everyone has value. And while our (sick) fascination celebrities is more amplified now due to technology -- it certainly is not a new phenomenon. Some are ab... |
View the Top Clips from January 5, 2008
Embed This Clip In Your Site...
|
||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
New from the makers of Clipmarks: Amplify.com - Don't just share the news...Amplify it!
|
|||||||||||||
