Vandrare

Hi infidels!

This is a question I have been wondering about, and thought some interesting discussions would develope:

For people who are famous and are often in the public eye (for example movie stars), is it their moral responsibility to be a good role model for the millions of young people who look up to them?

I realise that these people can have a major effect on trends and things like that within the community, but does this mean they have to throw out their personal right to live their life as they see fit? We are all able to live our lives as we choose and it would be completely unacceptable to have the infringements on our lives that famous people have, or the judgement of so many other people who never even have the full story - for instance if someone chooses to party all the time, get drunk a lot, experiment with drugs - this is their choice to make. How then can the public attack these people for being bad role models for children etc, when its their personal private life.

Another problem I see with this is that the millions of people who buy gossip mags and other trash like that are actually supporting these publications, who are in turn supporting paparazzi and those types of people who spend all their time intruding on famous peoples private lives and pretty much infringing on all their personal privacy rights. They then pass moral judgements on these people when stories are printed about them (after intrusions into their private lives), often with no real proof at all, and sensationalised to cause controversy.

Anyway the crux of the problem here is do these famous people have a moral obligation to be good role models?

:-D Anna

Bree

Personally, I don't believe they have that obligation. Their obligation is to entertain us, should we wish to pay the $5 for a matinee or the $16 for a CD. The rest is up to them.

Vandrare

this is what i tend to think also, and instead that the shame should fall on anyone who purchases those trashy mags!

:-D Anna

Alonzo Fyfe

I think that everybody has an obligation to be a good role model, regardless of whether they are in the public eye or not.

On questions of whether a person is being "a poor role model", I start off by asking if the person is realy doing anything wrong.

If the answer is 'no', then I counter by saying that he is not being a poor role model. To say that he is being a poor role model is to make unfounded judgments, and to pass those prejudices onto their children. The person being called a "poor role model" has no obligation to help parents in perpetuating those prejudices. Indeed, quite the opposite. He does society a greater service by countering those prejudices.

And if the answer is 'yes', then he is doing something that nobody should do no matter how talented or skilled they are. Talent does not buy one special rights, a type of social nobility that one may use to force one's will on others. There are still elements of human decency that govern how one person ought to treat another, and one's status as an entertainer or a sports figure does not buy one an immunity.

As far as engaging in self-destructive behavior, I think that somebody who is going to do this is hardly going to be convinced by the argument "you need to do this in order to be a role model for children," if he is not convinced by the argument "you should do this to keep from destroying your own life."

meritocrat

Heck, no. Simply because someone is 'famous' that does not warrant more 'saint-like' behaviour from a celebrity. They are still human and are prone to making errors like the rest of us.

Vandrare

posted by Alfonzo Fyfe

are you able to back this up with why? after all thats a huge responsibility for everyone if your able to support it.

i can see how one could argue that by willingly partaking of society, one therefore has some responsibility in turn for its continuation and standards. but is this the only argument for it?

:-D Anna

braces_for_impact

I think that if a kid needs a role model and the parent isn't it, then there's definitely a problem to begin with. Start at home.

Alonzo Fyfe

Hmmm. Alfonzo. That's a new spelling.

I really do not see it as a "huge responsibility". In fact, I don't see it as anything above and beyond doing that which we already have a responsibility to do anyway. That is to say, it does not add anything to the list of responsibilities we would have if there were no obligation to be a role model.

Another way in the same thing -- anything that you can legitimately criticize a person for, in virtue of "being a poor role model", is something for which there is already some other legitimate criticism.

A third way of saying the same thing. How can it be the case that the ONLY THING wrong with a particular action is that the person performing it is a poor role model -- but other than that there is absolutely nothing to be said against it?

I don't see how such a claim can make any sense.

fatherphil

i think we all have a moral obligation to be good role models.

long winded fool

Everyone does have an obligation to be a good role model, but that doesn't mean that everyone else must agree on what a "good role model" is. Isn't a rich crime-lord a good role model for kids who want to grow up to be rich crime-lords? He's certainly a better role model than a police officer or a fireman in that situation. Maybe we think kids shouldn't want this, but maybe the rich crime lord thinks they should. If so, he's being a good role model in his own opinion, and isn't that all we can really expect without being "moral absolutists" and forcing our beliefs onto others?