A discussion of employing rational, objective, and honest thinking that revolves around the controversy of Logan Paul (Yes, I know I’m late to the party).
I, unlike the angry mobs on the internet, will not assume the moral high ground when it comes to the Logan Paul controversy. “But John,” some might say, “he showed a dead body, made a joke of suicide, and profited off death.” I think this response, which was the norm on Twitter for a week or so, is dramatic, let alone inaccurate if you objectively watch the never-monetized vlog without a pitchfork.
Frankly, I think most YouTube vlogs are stupid and I didn’t know who Logan Paul was before this incident. Nevertheless I am unwilling to take opinion from the internet at face value, so I went and watched a reuploaded (and censored) version of the full “Logang” vlog post. Did I think that the Suicide Forest-based premise of the episode was misguided and distasteful? Yes. But I do not think he violated such a clear and foundational ethical principle that his career should be ruined.
From a deontological perspective, I think Paul was well-intended. He stated in the video that he was planning to speak seriously about the issue of suicide, and I am at least willing to give him the benefit of the doubt here. However, even if he had not found a body, I think his means were unethical in that one should not put on a silly hat and go ghost hunting in a sacred forest with such a heavy reputation. But I do not think he deserves the hate and punishment he received. We see dead bodies all the time on TV, and suicide is literally made a joke time and time again. To act like some silly guy with a vlog was to abide by some fancy code of ethics that no one seems to be held to is, I think, unfair and hypocritical.
The larger issue here of course is not actual about Logan Paul himself, but rather the dishonesty and fake outrage about non-issues like the vlog of some stupid kid. Outrage is not a virtue, sorry.
In liberty, John Osterhoudt