• @cucumber_sandwich
    link
    401 year ago

    You could argue most of the money some top athletes make is from advertising deals and you might see that as amoral. Being really good at running is impressive, but doesn’t inherently contribute hundreds of millions of dollars worth of value to society.

    • @kurwa
      link
      141 year ago

      Brand deals with companies that sell stuff that’s probably made by slave Labor. Not so ethical.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        -3
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Is anything that any of us do in the western world ethical based on that though?

        I mean who are to judge athletes for those brands deals when we’re buying those products, using those phones/computers to go on Lemmy etc.

        I’d argue musicians/athletes that do this are not the most ethical, but it’s not this stuff that makes them the worst offenders.

        • @kurwa
          link
          31 year ago

          They are famous people, if they advertised a more ethical brand, people would buy that brand instead.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          21 year ago

          Consumption in the modern world has inherent problems, yes. The ethical way to exist in a world that values consumption as much as ours does is to consume less. You still HAVE to consume. There’s a lot of stuff we either flat out need(food, water, shelter) or would be at SUCH a disadvantage without it becomes required (Internet, phone, car).

          How you consume is important though. Use your phone until it’s a brick. Buy local, and cook your own food. Vet whatever you buy as much as you can.

          Entertainers feed into this lifestyle. They become the thing to consume. And that’s OK in moderation, but not to the level that they become worth hundreds of millions, billions of dollars. That’s excessive.