Is THIS ethical?

Is it even real? … -urine.php

This all depends on what words mean, words defining and defending other words. And anybody can rationalize the falsity of what you’d say, because anybody can rationalize anything. Sans god, everything is equally rational. This is about dasein and political economy and abortion. And how does this address the issue of abortion, in general, and make sure your answer is not on the skyhooks. Tom and Mary have an abortion. Moral or not moral? Focus on the concrete case of dasein: Tom and Mary, please. Not Bob and Linda. To wit, sans god, there’s no answer, everything is equally rational.

Unless, of course, I’m wrong.

But seriously, I don’t think it’s ethical. It caused a great deal of fright for the people involved. And generally, prank or not, I think that’s something that tends to count against. Yes, there was maybe slight pleasure for people watching (but I doubt it—it was pretty creepy), but really, that just adds to the embarassment of the people, whether they recognize it or not.

I don’t know. If you’re going to give a utilitarian analysis - it has over 3.8 million views and judging by the comments many people found it hilarious. I thought it was pretty funny, actually. The temporary scaring of a very small group of people is surely outweighed by 3 million people’s pleasure, however slight?

Is it ethical? No, probably not. But I think an (act) utilitarian analysis might have to conclude that it actually is ethical. It’s probably a good example of the failures of the simplest forms of Utilitarianism (of which, to be fair, there is already an abundance).

No, and we could be talking about 3 billion people, instead of 3 million—or 300 billion for that matter—and just one person being scared. Personally, when I watched it, I don’t think I really got any pleasure at all. Actually, I think I’m actually dumber and have a bleaker view of humanity after having watched it. Some of those 3 million views will be in my category. And some will have watched it like anybody on a highway slows down to look at a car crash. They’ll get no pleasure, or it’ll count negatively. If we’re doing a calculus, the person’s fright is probably short-lived for most of them, but intense while it lasts. The pleasure isn’t even intense. Not to mention that shows like this further the mindset that it’s ok to get your kicks out of fucking with people—and that’s not a policy that tends to work well.

I’m not sure if it’s unethical—that seems a bit strict. It’s certainly dumb. And maybe risky, supposing someone could drop dead, or attack the girl actress.

Here’s what’s not helpful: Saying that something is unethical without saying why, and then saying the problem with some theory is that it generates a different answer (than the one you gave no reasons for).

Wrong. I mean, people used to enjoy seeing other people torn apart by lions. Sure, this is a soft porn version of that, but that a lot of people enjoyed seeing someone else suffer doesn’t counter that suffering for me, it only adds to the wrongness. I mean, I can find it fascinating, finding it here, as I can all sorts of youtube things. But I don’t like that someone was truly terrified for others’ amusement. Amazed, confused, put in a state of wonder, thinking someone is an idiot, irritated…
those emotions and that level of emotion, fine, prank away.
Perhaps imagining it was one’s own mother who got terrified for other people’s pleasure might help someone reevaluate.

The participants were most likely in it.

Um, people have had heart attacks over less. By most measures, i wouldn’t count it as ethically correct. It’s probably pretty fuckin’ stupid, though. Shitting pants is one thing. if someone shit the bed over this, the waivers might not mean much. I’m not sure what the law is in Brazil, though.

I found amusement in these people could not put two and two together. I can grasp momentary startled reaction. But come on. Real fear?. Are Brazilians abnormally superstitious? They could not risk that little girl. Do you realize how many people would kneejerk attack out of real fear?

First, wrong about what? And secondly, you should give reasons for this. Personally, I think people ought not enjoy watching others suffer, but only because it requires that for your enjoyment you make others suffer, and that there’s no reason to think you can’t entertain yourself similarly without forcing people to be eaten by lions. But none of this makes actual pleasure bad. That’s incoherent.

Is it real? Yes, because reality is a matter of belief, or it’s suspension. Is it ethical? Yes, because it’s intent is fun. But what about unintended consequences? Life is full of them. Life would need to be shut down, if every event would need to be evaluated by it’s unintended outcome. Rule of thumb: a well intended act, regardless of it’s outcome, can not be ethically evaluated if such outcome can be justified on some ground. In this case, the ground is amusement. If amusement as ground stands up as a necessary diversion, ethical evaluation, concludes neither the rightness or wrong ness of such action. It becomes neither ethical, nor unethical, but a “closely watched”, and regulated act. The regulation itself, will become part of the act, to redefine the relative outcome. Sort of redefining the objective by factoring in the regulatory,changing of the outcome.

In this case: the object of the regulation is to minimise the negative unintended outcome.

No it wouldn’t. Some unintended consequences are extremely likely to happen and ridiculously simple to predict. For example, if I’m a policeman I can shoot my gun into a very crowded street. The intention is to catch the bad guy, and keep him from harming anyone. The intention is good. The act is bad----because I’m extremely likely to shoot an innocent person. This is a simple thing.

This is a good example of an unintended consequence. However, what’s missing in this scenario, is the ground. In the prior example the ground was entertainment. In the policemen example, entertainment most certainly would not be, maybe for a deranged policeman. A deranged policeman can not be proven to have any type of intention whatever, because of the lack of his capacity to understand the nature of his actions. The example of the policeman is a good example for missing the regulatory aspect of ethical re-evaluation.

 Caveat: its against public policy, set by civil comission, to allow law enforcement do shoot after an escaping felon, where civilians would be put at risk.  

 But your compelling logic needs to be looked at from other points of view, to give it justice,and I appreciate your argument..

Most likely, else they wouldn’t be participants :wink:

No sorry that makes it much funnier.

No, part of the intended outcome is to scare the shit out of people for the entertainment of other people. Which is a basic description of a sadistic goal. That there may be longer term negative effects for the victims might, or might not be, unintended outcomes, but I doubt the producers or the public care much about these. Sure, there can be negative unintended outcomes of many kinds of activities, but most of these do not have sadism at the heart of them. Once sadism is the fundamental phenomenon being worked with, we cannot simply label all the suffering of the victims as miraculously unintended. I am sure we can come up with grey areas, but this is not an example of one of those.

Whether the participants were in on it or not doesn’t really matter for the issue. Would it be ethical if they were not?

It appeals to the child part in us. Recall as kids jumping out and scaring someone? And we also have Halloween, Day of the dead, Horror flicks. The news, reality shows oh and Shows like America’s funniest videos. If that episode is unethical the so too is all the above and kids should be punished for pulling pranks. Is this the world you want?

Depends on the prank. Depends on the kids involved, their ability to not go to far, to know their friends. I mean, when kinds prank, they know the other person, they have a good chance of knowing what would be too much or what kid not to pull such a prank on. It’s not the cold crap shoot of that video. Even so, sure, kids sometimes do pranks that end up being unethical. I did one prank I later wished I had never done. It was unethical. Other pranks were much milder, and I think those were fine. Do I want a world where there are no pranks? No. I don’t want strangers getting off on scaring/seeing other scare other strangers really badly for money. Most pranks do not cause the kind of terror that happens in the kind of prank in that video. Youtube has many pranks like it, and yes, I think many of those people are being assholes to their friends, parents, and even children. Do I want rules that make it impossible for people to be assholes? Hardly. I don’t think there is some simply rule for what makes a prank simple sadism, but for me it is obvious that prank goes overboard. Some of those people may actually be traumatized by the experience, even develop a phobia. Kids rarely do pranks on that level, but when they do, they are being little shits and someone should give them that feedback. When kids do things that show an obvious and potentially dangerous absence of empathy, it’s a good time to let them know. Going back to the prank me and my friends pulled, it did scare him, but it was actually the more manipulative aspects of the prank that really bothered me. I apologized to him later and when I saw his face responding to my apology, I got it. I had done something wrong that I wouldn’t do again. A lot of other pranks, which I pulled or were pulled on me, did not have that feeling. Maybe you, like the other poster, would feel ok about having that prank pulled on your mother or daughter - etc.- but I wouldn’t. I would be angry that it happened. If my relative simply brushed it off as nothing, well, my anger would dissipate rather quickly, but given that some people will not brush it off, I think it’s a very bad prank. There are a lot of ingenious pranks going on out there, one can find them on Youtube, that do nto involve sadism or terror lasting like it may very well in that prank.

Just because I don’t like people driving up on the sidewalk fast and scaring people does not mean I am against driving.
Just because I am against certain lies, does not mean I won’t make up stories with my kids or pretend something on occasion.
Just because I don’t like bullies beating up people does not mean I am against kids play wrestling, even pretty roughly, with each other…

See the point about the faulty logic I am making…?

Oh, the world would be a terrible place if kids could not do pranks, is really a rather wild lament in context. I think THAT prank was unethical. Strangers scaring strangers very badly in a sustained way for the pleasure of others and for money.

These were intelligent adults who allowed their brains to think for an extended time that an obvious living girl was a spook. A second or four sure, but for crying out loud their brains should have seen it. That they did not is humorous. It was no worse then jumping out and yelling boo to someone stranger or not. The one that was in real danger was the little girl. If this was real, she would have been attacked at least once. If anyone was unethical it would be her parents for allowing her to be in danger if this was real.
Yes there is a line but, I did not see it being crossed prank wise.

What Kris said, yeah.

When I was in high school, I went through a haunted house with some friends.

I am irrationally afraid of the dark, and so having things jump out at me in the dark is not always the best idea. I don’t know why I even put myself through it, but anyway.

I nailed a little kid in the face with a flat palm. I didn’t mean to, it was just reflex. He was dressed all in black with a white mask on that was glowing in the black lights, and he was freaky. He’d been following me around, and then he disappeared and jumped out at me from a wall, and I reacted by trying to shove his nose back into his brain with my palm. He started crying and I heard him call for his mom, and omg I felt awful for a minute but…it was his own damn fault, and the adults in charge should’ve warned him that harassing someone who is clearly freaked out beyond the healthy bit of “scaredy-cat” most people get in a haunted house is wrong. I blame it all on his parents, and I hope that rude little fuck got a nosebleed.