• @cucumber_sandwich@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    407 months 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@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      147 months ago

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

      • @thetreesaysbark@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        -3
        edit-2
        7 months 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@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          37 months ago

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

        • @Ookami38@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          27 months 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.