Derren Brown is no different than Uri Gellar.

[JFrankA]

This is clearly false. We hate him, but many people clearly find him entertaining. By and large those are the people who's heads are getting filled with woo.

Your statement is another example of how people can't distinguish reality from fantasy:

Uri while off stage promotes woo and tries to make sure everyone knows he has powers.

Derren while off stage debunks woo and pretty much says he doing tricks.

No matter how many people may be entertained by whom there's the difference. And yes, that little difference makes a huge difference between unethical and ethical while onstage.

And here's the reason why: when a performer is offstage, and they basically say "everything I do onstage is a lie", they've owned up. Now it's up to the people watching to look at the performance not as reality, but as "how is he tricking me?"

If a performer says to a spectator: "Now I am going to lie a lot and tell the truth a little to fool you", and the spectator believes completely 100% what is said and done during that time, then that's the fault of the spectator.

But if performer says to a spectator: "What I do up here is absolutely real and true. I am not fooling you, this is real", then if the spectator believes it 100% completely then that's the fault of the performer.

That's why that one little difference is the gap between ethical and unethical.

 

[shuttlt]

No, that's not the argument: The argument is that Derren is clearly an entertainer, nothing more. Anyone who's heads are getting filled with woo by his shows are people who refuse to try to distinguish reality from fantasy and refuse to even try to look "under the surface".

In the same way as the owner of a gun shop has no responsibility if people use the guns on other people?

So what I'm getting is that both of your stance is that we must protect those few people. Since a few people might get the wrong idea so everyone do it the approved way.

I'm certainly not defending the Derren is no different to Uri line. I do think there is an issue of degree. I guess I see it as a cost benefit kind of deal. The benefit is the entertainment and the cost is the promotion of woo. Presumably Uri is well over to one side of that equation, Randi is on the other. Quite where Derren sits, other than that he is somewhere between the two is beyond me.

I don't say Derren should be banned. I don't say gunshops should be banned. I do say though that if you know that your actions will lead to, or increase the odds of, negative things happening then you are morally responsible.

As far as I can see there are only two ways out of this. One is to deny that Derren has any negative effects. The other is some kind of doctrine of the double effect position where Derren isn't responsible if the negative effect wasn't his goal.

Again, none of this is to say that I believe the benefits of Derren's entertainment are outweighed by the cost of people being encouraged to believe in woo.

 

[Darat]

...snip..

I'm certainly not defending the Derren is no different to Uri line. I do think there is an issue of degree. I guess I see it as a cost benefit kind of deal. The benefit is the entertainment and the cost is the promotion of woo. Presumably Uri is well over to one side of that equation, Randi is on the other. Quite where Derren sits, other than that he is somewhere between the two is beyond me.

...snip...

It's not an issue of degree, it's an issue of different types of activity. People may find Uri Geller entertaining however he claims he is not an entertainer.

 

[shuttlt]

Uri while off stage promotes woo and tries to make sure everyone knows he has powers.

Derren while off stage debunks woo and pretty much says he doing tricks.

I don't care about whether Uri carries on his act off stage or not. My argument is based on the effect these people have, not whether they have broken some magicians code.

And here's the reason why: when a performer is offstage, and they basically say "everything I do onstage is a lie", they've owned up. Now it's up to the people watching to look at the performance not as reality, but as "how is he tricking me?"

I don't care what Derren says off stage. If the upshot of his act is that more people believe in woo, or have their belief in woo reinforced, then that is a consequence of his act. If by what he says he is able to undo this, or create some other good that offsets it then that's fine. If he's saying "all that stuff was a lie" and it doesn't undo or offset the negative effect of his act, then I really don't care whether he says it or not.

If a performer says to a spectator: "Now I am going to lie a lot and tell the truth a little to fool you", and the spectator believes completely 100% what is said and done during that time, then that's the fault of the spectator.

Why does it have to be one or the other persons fault? If the performer knows that a lot of the people will still be taken in regardless of his warning then he is responsible for this happening. That isn't to say the spectator isn't responsible for their own stupidity.

But if performer says to a spectator: "What I do up here is absolutely real and true. I am not fooling you, this is real", then if the spectator believes it 100% completely then that's the fault of the performer.

I see little difference between the two in terms of moral responsibility.

 

[andycal]

This thread does seem to be falling into an argument about social responsibility and what's acceptible or not. If that's the case then surely there's no answer?

Derren tells everyone that they're being tricked and that he's fooling you with illusion. The announcer on Channel 4 said "Prepare to be fooled" before his lottery show. He's quite up front about it and it's about as far as he could go without actually showing the whole thing, which would defeat the object somewhat.

If you don't like magic then you would have a point, but I actually do like magic and I like to leave a show thinking about 'how he did it'. If someone wants to think that he invoked Rama then that's their look-out, but so far all I've heard from people is "Wow, he's a clever sausage, how did he know that woman had a tatoo on her ankle and worked at WHSmith?"

I'm a big believer in the science agenda and in facts and figures, but I'm also not a robot and having a bit of wonder is actually quite nice. It takes the edge off an otherwise crappy day.

 

[andycal]

I don't care what Derren says off stage. If the upshot of his act is that more people believe in woo, or have their belief in woo reinforced, then that is a consequence of his act. If by what he says he is able to undo this, or create some other good that offsets it then that's fine. If he's saying "all that stuff was a lie" and it doesn't undo or offset the negative effect of his act, then I really don't care whether he says it or not.

So, how does he fix this problem?

 

[shuttlt]

It's not an issue of degree, it's an issue of different types of activity. People may find Uri Geller entertaining however he claims he is not an entertainer.

I don't care what Geller claims. I'm only interested in what Geller believes the consequences of his actions are and what I believe the consequences of his actions are.

 

[shuttlt]

So, how does he fix this problem?

How should I know?

Doing his act has certain consequences, both good and bad. Either he's happy to accept and take responsibility for those consequences, or he isn't. If he isn't he should change his act, or stop doing his act, or try harder to counter the woo, or donate money to orphaned kittens or something. The consequence for him may be being less successful.

 

[shuttlt]

I'm a big believer in the science agenda and in facts and figures, but I'm also not a robot and having a bit of wonder is actually quite nice. It takes the edge off an otherwise crappy day.

In which case the argument is that the positives outweigh the negatives and Derren should continue doing what he's doing.

 

[JFrankA]

In which case the argument is that the positives outweigh the negatives and Derren should continue doing what he's doing.

But that isn't the case.

Your gun example: If a gun shop owner follows all the rules, and a buyer comes into purchase a gun. The buyer checks out clean, no record, no history of violence, etc, etc. So, following the rules, the gun shop owner sells the gun to the buyer.

A week goes by and in that week the buyer decides to take his gun and shoot up a school.

By the way you put it, the gun shop owner is at fault for those deaths.

If we are going to put it into "degree of difference between a positive outcome and a negative outcome", we can go further: anyone who sells cigarettes is unethical. Anyone who sells alcohol is unethical. Anyone who sells McDonald's food is unethical....

 

[andycal]

How should I know?

Doing his act has certain consequences, both good and bad. Either he's happy to accept and take responsibility for those consequences, or he isn't. If he isn't he should change his act, or stop doing his act, or try harder to counter the woo, or donate money to orphaned kittens or something. The consequence for him may be being less successful.

So as long as he's happy (which I would imagine he is), everything in the world is happy.

There's obviously no way to know, so we'd better all stop assuming.

Cool. Glad we sorted that out.

 

[shuttlt]

Your gun example: If a gun shop owner follows all the rules, and a buyer comes into purchase a gun. The buyer checks out clean, no record, no history of violence, etc, etc. So, following the rules, the gun shop owner sells the gun to the buyer.

A week goes by and in that week the buyer decides to take his gun and shoot up a school.

By the way you put it, the gun shop owner is at fault for those deaths.

Now that would depend. Is the gunshop owner under the impression that the rules are perfect and no gun purchase according to the rules goes on to be used for anything unfortunate? If so, then I don't think he is morally responsible. If he knows that it is possible that somebody will buy a gun from him despite him following procedure and yet the gun will go on to be used in a shooting that wouldn't have occurred if he hadn't sold the gun, then he is to some degree responsible.

If we are going to put it into "degree of difference between a positive outcome and a negative outcome", we can go further: anyone who sells cigarettes is unethical.

Hmmm. Could be. Depends on the cost benefit.

Anyone who sells alcohol is unethical.

Depends on the cost benefit.

Anyone who sells McDonald's food is unethical....

Depends on the cost benefit.

 

[shuttlt]

So as long as he's happy (which I would imagine he is), everything in the world is happy.

There's obviously no way to know, so we'd better all stop assuming.

Cool. Glad we sorted that out.

Don't be silly. You are misstating my position.

If he is promoting woo and happy to be doing it, then he doesn't have a problem that needs my advice to fix. That isn't to say that that makes it universally OK, but if he is content on balance to be promoting woo, what argument would there be for him to change?

We are all capable of having a different opinion as to whether and how bad promoting woo is and reaching different moral opinions to him.

 

[Stray Cat]

Derren Brown has a goatee beard... Geller doesn't!

So they are different!

Therefore the assertion of this thread's title is conclusively shown to be false.

Plus what everyone else has said.

 

[Darat]

I don't care what Geller claims. I'm only interested in what Geller believes the consequences of his actions are and what I believe the consequences of his actions are.

The consequences of Geller's claims is that he can sell people pseudo-science and supernatural and make a very comfortable living from that. He has over the years sold many things, from books that promise to teach you you how you can use the power of your mind to heal yourself or remote view to crystals that he stated would protect you from bad luck, clear-up negative energy, heal you and so on.

Quite serious question - do you know much about Geller and what he has done over the decades?

 

[Darat]

Don't be silly. You are misstating my position.

If he is promoting woo and happy to be doing it, then he doesn't have a problem that needs my advice to fix. That isn't to say that that makes it universally OK, but if he is content on balance to be promoting woo, what argument would there be for him to change?

We are all capable of having a different opinion as to whether and how bad promoting woo is and reaching different moral opinions to him.

It's a good job then that Derren Brown is not promoting woo isn't it?

 

[shuttlt]

The consequences of Geller's claims is that he can sell people pseudo-science and supernatural and make a very comfortable living from that. He has over the years sold many things, from books that promise to teach you you how you can use the power of your mind to heal yourself or remote view to crystals that he stated would protect you from bad luck, clear-up negative energy, heal you and so on.

Quite serious question - do you know much about Geller and what he has done over the decades?

I know all this. I'm not arguing that what Geller says and does doesn't have consequences, and more than likely far worse consequences, from our point of view, than Derren.

I fail to understand the purpose of this line of questioning.

 

[shuttlt]

It's a good job then that Derren Brown is not promoting woo isn't it?

Define promoting? Do you mean as in going on a sales drive where the object is to sell as much woo as possible, or causing the overall quantity of woo to increase?

 

[Darat]

Define promoting? Do you mean as in going on a sales drive where the object is to sell as much woo as possible, or causing the overall quantity of woo to increase?

"Promoting" to me would mean that someone is trying to "support or encourage something" or "advance something", I've not seen one scrap of evidence that Derren Brown is - by that definition - promoting woo.

 

[shuttlt]

"Promoting" to me would mean that someone is trying to "support or encourage something" or "advance something", I've not seen one scrap of evidence that Derren Brown is - by that definition - promoting woo.

This may be the issue. I would say the increase of woo is a secondary and undesired consequence of his act. If you can suggest another word than promote to indicate this, then I'd be glad to use it.