|
Post by beth on Nov 18, 2017 18:47:31 GMT -5
Suddenly, the people with most of the power in the entertainment industry are being held up to expectations of high moral codes.
Now, in less than a week, people in leadership rolls as politicians and statesmen are also being scrutinized.
How important is it, really, that the leaders, creators and thinkers in these high powered professions practice high morale standards? It's hard to imagine everyone suddenly turning over "a new leaf".
Codes of ethics are very important in business and governance, but is it alsoimportant for these leaders to be held as closely to moral codes of conduct?
|
|
|
Post by Sysop3 on Nov 18, 2017 20:23:21 GMT -5
Are you talking about Christian morals?
First, it might be a good idea to look at the truth of the matter. Most people in the entertainment industry do not bother to pretend to be Christians. Many politicians do. That's just for starters.
Entertainers have never claimed to be virtuous so why start now? As long as the word is out about the ones that are hard to work with so people can stay out of their clutches. it's worked pretty well so far.
With politicians, I'd like to see a code of conduct of some kind for them. 3 strikes, they're out.
|
|
Jessiealan
xr
Member of the Month, October 2013
Posts: 8,726
|
Post by Jessiealan on Nov 18, 2017 22:00:53 GMT -5
It depends on who you ask. It is very important to me.
I thought Bill Clinton was a very good President, but had he run again, after the scandal went public, I would not have voted for him.
The ones who deny wrong doing when several other people accuse them (think Trump and Roy Moore) are even worse.
On the other hand, I still go to Woody Allen movies. Is that being hypocritical? It seems like 2 different things to me - entertainment and politics. Entertainers are not charged with making laws that affect our lives.
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Nov 19, 2017 8:25:54 GMT -5
the word Christian in regard to morals is really irelevent ..especially as many come from other faiths and of course moral behaviour is not dependednt on one being either Christian or religious as there are human standards which have lasted down the ages but are more or less the same where ever you go in the world.. regardless of race or culture tribe or religion
the pigmy of the rain forests for example had no word for rape because rape was unknown
the Austrailian Aboriginal had one member in all groups that could name all the family members for generations ..a history used primarily to prevent intermarriage/breeding and the defects that come with inter unions
the American Indian had a system of looking after the female elderly and the female widowed who needed security and help with feeding so one of the men would marry in title rather than deed] a widow until she found another husband or not... or marry the widow and daughters between several men not for sex but so they had some one to care for them etc until they could care for themselves if they had sons etc .. the women would do jobs in return
tribal lives were not defunct of morals or standards and in general they are so like our own do and donts
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Nov 19, 2017 8:44:17 GMT -5
""Suddenly, the people with most of the power in the entertainment industry are being held up to expectations of high moral codes.""
am not so sure its about high morals or moral codes as a turning against people who abuse their position and abuse trust...and have bullied and made unwelcome moves against people ... they have to learn that no means no and ones furture should not hinge of pleasing some obnoxious oik I mean the film tv industry hasn't a leg to stand on when it comes to morals ..in general people have been paid off since early film years and the behaviour of so many so called stars can not be said to even nod in the direction of morals or standards it used to be said that the much married Elizabeth Taylor was as much a paid prostitute as any call girl.. the only difference being that la Talyor never stood on a street corner and she was better paid
I think politions are in a different position than the media/film etc politions are there by vote to run our countries..they make the laws.. set the standards.. so they do infact have an obligation to behave in a certain way to uphold their own proffesed standards when homosexuality was an imprisonable offence it was very hyporcritical to have a variety of the inclined prancing around Westminster almost immune unless they really dropped a clanger .. when just down the road one or more could be arrested for that same prancing if your making the rules for a society then you have to live with those same rules as does every one else
|
|
josephdphillips
Global Facilitator
January 2015 Member of the Month
Posts: 3,494
|
Post by josephdphillips on Nov 20, 2017 12:40:22 GMT -5
Codes of ethics are very important in business and governance, but is it also important for these leaders to be held as closely to moral codes of conduct? You're confusing ethics with morals. They're not the same thing. It is quite possible to be ethical and immoral, or to be moral and unethical.
|
|
|
Post by beth on Nov 20, 2017 14:23:17 GMT -5
Codes of ethics are very important in business and governance, but is it also important for these leaders to be held as closely to moral codes of conduct? You're confusing ethics with morals. They're not the same thing. It is quite possible to be ethical and immoral, or to be moral and unethical. Of course it is. Sorry, I scrambled it. So do you think poor morals and ethics should disqualify people in positions of power? Weinstein is a good example. He seems to be reasonably talented in his profession. Does his (apparent) lack of integrity mean he should not be allowed to work anymore at something he does well?
|
|
josephdphillips
Global Facilitator
January 2015 Member of the Month
Posts: 3,494
|
Post by josephdphillips on Nov 20, 2017 15:46:36 GMT -5
So do you think poor morals and ethics should disqualify people in positions of power? No. Weinstein is a good example. Not really. What position of power, exactly, did he occupy? He was in the entertainment business, which is frivolous, by definition. You say nothing about the ethics or morals of someone who waits decades to make an accusation about anything, about anyone. Where is the outrage? Where is the opprobrium directed to false accusers? Does his (apparent) lack of integrity mean he should not be allowed to work anymore at something he does well? What is "integrity" and who defines it? You? No, of course not. Me? Ditto. The "public?" HELL, NO. All that matters in the Harvey Weinstein dispute is whether or not he violated his employment contract. That's between him and his board.
|
|
|
Post by men an tol on Nov 20, 2017 17:01:22 GMT -5
So do you think poor morals and ethics should disqualify people in positions of power? No. Weinstein is a good example. Not really. What position of power, exactly, did he occupy? He was in the entertainment business, which is frivolous, by definition. You say nothing about the ethics or morals of someone who waits decades to make an accusation about anything, about anyone. Where is the outrage? Where is the opprobrium directed to false accusers? Does his (apparent) lack of integrity mean he should not be allowed to work anymore at something he does well? What is "integrity" and who defines it? You? No, of course not. Me? Ditto. The "public?" HELL, NO. All that matters in the Harvey Weinstein dispute is whether or not he violated his employment contract. That's between him and his board. Joseph has a good point that this is between Weinstein’s employer and himself. Ethics and morals are not part of this as to what should be done to him if anything. That most people would find him a poor person at best is probably true but not pertinent. Although they are the victim, the women also are Contributing to the act of Weinstein by submitting to such pressure as the job they want is more important than their own self. However, I still say that the best way to handle this is for a male in the Woman’s family to meet and face down Weinstein to demonstrate in public what a complete jerk and coward he is. Just consider that he seems to have such a lack of confidence with woman that he must force them to submit to him.
|
|
josephdphillips
Global Facilitator
January 2015 Member of the Month
Posts: 3,494
|
Post by josephdphillips on Nov 20, 2017 17:52:55 GMT -5
Although they are the victim, the women also are Contributing to the act of Weinstein by submitting to such pressure as the job they want is more important than their own self. Legally, it's Weinstein who is the victim. the best way to handle this is for a male in the Woman’s family to meet and face down Weinstein to demonstrate in public what a complete jerk and coward he is. Better yet, how about pistols at 50 paces? Jeez, Randy.
|
|
|
Post by men an tol on Nov 20, 2017 18:33:52 GMT -5
Although they are the victim, the women also are Contributing to the act of Weinstein by submitting to such pressure as the job they want is more important than their own self. Legally, it's Weinstein who is the victim. the best way to handle this is for a male in the Woman’s family to meet and face down Weinstein to demonstrate in public what a complete jerk and coward he is. Better yet, how about pistols at 50 paces? Jeez, Randy. We have evolved in a culture where standing forth for one's principles is no longer accepted. I guess,in part, we are meant to make jobs for attorneys. Yes, I know we are civilized and personal confrontations are considered wrong. We wallow in our being civilized. . . . . . . but is that really true? If an individual has enough to employee the right attorney or body guard they can enforce their position no matter that others can't. I understand that in your past you were a reporter. If so, then I suspect that you are aware of stories created by intent situations where an individual or business was made as being the bad entity even when they weren't, and that was allowed even when the victim had no power to fight back. No matter how much we say the opposite life is not fair and most victims have no position to make their case. In the end, it is accepting what process is preferred and available. Or, is it a simply a matter of money and political power who can win a confrontation? 50 paces? Why not pistols at two paces and only one of them is loaded?
|
|
Jessiealan
xr
Member of the Month, October 2013
Posts: 8,726
|
Post by Jessiealan on Nov 20, 2017 23:33:54 GMT -5
What is "integrity" and who defines it? You? No, of course not. Me? Ditto. The "public?" HELL, NO. Merriiam-Webster, for starters - if you seriously do not know. Definition of integrity 1 :firm adherence to a code of especially moral or artistic values :incorruptibility 2 :an unimpaired condition :soundness 3 :the quality or state of being complete or undivided :completeness See integrity defined for English-language See the entire page www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/integrity
|
|
Jessiealan
xr
Member of the Month, October 2013
Posts: 8,726
|
Post by Jessiealan on Nov 20, 2017 23:39:47 GMT -5
Joseph has a good point that this is between Weinstein’s employer and himself. Ethics and morals are not part of this as to what should be done to him if anything. That most people would find him a poor person at best is probably true but not pertinent. Although they are the victim, the women also are Contributing to the act of Weinstein by submitting to such pressure as the job they want is more important than their own self. As to a male in the woman's family calling him out in public, he would not allow himself to be put in that position. Celebrities and executives, especially the 1%, live in a different world than most of us.
|
|
|
Post by men an tol on Nov 21, 2017 0:34:59 GMT -5
Joseph has a good point that this is between Weinstein’s employer and himself. Ethics and morals are not part of this as to what should be done to him if anything. That most people would find him a poor person at best is probably true but not pertinent. Although they are the victim, the women also are Contributing to the act of Weinstein by submitting to such pressure as the job they want is more important than their own self. As to a male in the woman's family calling him out in public, he would not allow himself to be put in that position. Celebrities and executives, especially the 1%, live in a different world than most of us. You are correct JessieAlan. I have found that people who place others in positions where they seemingly have no way to turn are mostly cowards. They tend to walk in fear of somebody hurting them. If they are placed in a position of being guilty of something they have done, they will slink away. Or they if they have the means to hire a protector, it is basically the same result. We seem to have come to a point in the West where people learn what they really are like, most people will find them as not being worth being around and with such a realization their illusion of power disappears. Leaving then as the sad little cowards that they have been.
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Nov 21, 2017 3:33:29 GMT -5
Joseph has a good point that this is between Weinstein’s employer and himself. Ethics and morals are not part of this as to what should be done to him if anything. That most people would find him a poor person at best is probably true but not pertinent. Although they are the victim, the women also are Contributing to the act of Weinstein by submitting to such pressure as the job they want is more important than their own self. As to a male in the woman's family calling him out in public, he would not allow himself to be put in that position. Celebrities and executives, especially the 1%, live in a different world than most of us.
|
|