 |
| Maybe I didn't need all the candy? |
As I looked back at numerous family photos tonight, I saw
many which were of my Halloween costumes, candy, etc. from various years. As a child who loved my candy and a daughter
of two candy lovers, I often times would be told my candy was gone before it actually
was gone. I think it’s absolutely cruel
that my parents did this to me, but looking back on some of these photos I
think I can understand why they did.
While looking at these pictures, the Dirty Hands problem came to
me. My parents intentionally lied to me
about my candy being gone numerous times.
This made me think also of Jimmy Kimmel’s Halloween Candy Challenge.
For those of you who don’t know what that is, it’s a pretty
cruel thing yet absolutely hilarious as a viewer. Jimmy Kimmel asks parents to tell their kids
they ate their candy and that it’s all gone, when in actuality it isn’t, in
order to spark a reaction from them.
They are supposed to film this encounter and send in your video to Jimmy
Kimmel so that he can create a video documenting all of them.
If we look at this in terms of Dirty Hands, do we truly
think the ends justify the means? Sure,
your child could potentially make their big break and have their fifteen
seconds of fame through this video; this is the ends. (There is also a probably fairly large chance
they don’t even make it into the video in which case you’re a completely cruel
parent and you better buy your kid extra candy but we’ll focus on the positive
outcome for this post.) The means is
deceiving your child into believing you ate their candy in order to capture
their reaction and be on Jimmy Kimmel’s video.
This probably seems fine because it doesn’t cause any harm
to anybody as it’s simply a joke and can easily be resolved, but this small lie
can teach kids to make bigger jokes and play similar tricks in their own
settings. For example, a kid may steal
something from another kid’s lunch and say he ate it in order to get a reaction
out of the child. These things can
become labeled bullying and are considered quite serious. If the ends of this trick were different, the
means may not be justified as it sets a horrible example.
But Machiavelli basically condones this because the ends
justify the means due to the fact there’s no permanent harm and everybody is
happy in the end. I don’t necessarily
think that’s right because it in turn is also condoning bullying which I do not
agree with regardless of who is doing it.
Do you think the ends justify the means? Did your parents ever do anything like this
to you?
I remember watching this segment when it first came out, and I thought it was hilarious, but also terribly mean! The ends do not justify the means in this case. What exactly would be the benefit of exploiting your child's pain on national T.V.? Their 15 minutes of fame? The adults amusement? There is no justifiable outcome for this case. The dirtying of the parents hands does nothing but cause pain for the child, as well as providing a good laugh for the parents. I don't even think Machiavelli himself would say this is justifiable as the only people who benefit are the parents. Who knows the harm this trick could take on the child. Presumably none, but why take the risk?
ReplyDeleteI have always thought that these videos were really funny. It is amazing how upset these kids get over losing their candy. I think that telling them their candy is gone is a good learning tool to teach them how to react to situations. Many of the kids throw a fit and just freak out. The parents can teach them that that isn't an okay way to deal with their problems. As far as it promoting bullying, I think that is a little extreme. If the parent teaches their child the importance of not bullying others, this one event will not change that perspective. And lastly, these videos are hilarious and are ultimately harmless. I am all for them.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all I have to say that that video cracked me up. I had never seen/heard of this challenge before but I'm glad I did now! And I get what you are saying in making the connection to Machiavelli, but I don't know if I would say this is a situation in which the ends justify the means. Yes, no one is worse off and no one is harmed in pulling this prank. But I don't think that saying really applies to a situation in which someone is trying to reach an outcome in which they are trying to better everyones situation. So yes no one is worse off, but this doesn't really make anyone better off either. I see the similarity in what you are saying, but I just don't think it quite applies even though one could argue that lying is technically often considered to be a moral wrong.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure that Machiavelli would agree that the ends from this action justified the means. For instance, what exactly did the ends achieve? Was it better now that the child realized practical jokes are prevalent in the real world and that they need to learn to not be gullible? I do not think any real, explicit positive ends were achieved from the means of tricking the child into believing their candy was gone. Machiavelli advocated dirty hands if the end was so desirable and so necessary that the immoral means to achieving the end were worth it. In this case, even though the joke is harmless, the means probably only cause momentary harm to the child but still I do not believe the ends bring about any positive results.
ReplyDeleteI know what you're getting at, but I'm not sure I completely agree with it. By getting their kid on television, what exactly have they accomplished for their kid? I'm not sure this is really a Machiavellian/Dirty Hands type of situation, unless you see simply being on television as a benefit. Though would it be a benefit for any sort of state, or just the kid/yourself? If you see it as a benefit for the kid, I'm not sure if it would be considered Dirty Hands or not, because the kid does not really constitute a state. If the benefit is for yourself, you could argue that the action is simply immoral.
ReplyDeleteI think a better argument might be that you're doing it for the comedic benefit of the state. You could look at it in the way that you're sacrificing the kid's happiness for the greater good of everyone who sees the video. You're sacrificing the happiness of one for the happiness of many. I think looking at the video in this manner makes it more of a Machiavellian/Dirty Hands thing.
But either way, I'm not really sure the video should be looked at in a Machiavellian manner. It's just a compilation of videos all done in good fun. I don't agree with saying that it condones bullying. I don't think a simple practical joke can be considered bullying. If practical jokes are consistently being played on one kid with the intent of hurting him, then it's bullying. But is one tiny event like in a kid's life really going to cause any bullying that wouldn't have occurred otherwise? Come on, now.