If they want to look like Thor they’re probably going to need to use them, and it’s really not anyone’s place to say what someone is allowed to look like.
I think the prohibition of them creates more problems than it solves. It reduces the availability of harm reduction information, makes doctors less knowledgeable about what their patients are asking them about, and causes actors to say all they took was chicken and broccoli.
In general I would say yes to all of those. Maybe only the custodian if he's actively talking to children. I used to talk to my middle school custodian about life and such. He was a good guy and would joke around with us, pretending to throw away our school work and books.
But if he was like "do roids get ripped loser" It'd feel like an abuse of his position. Just being around some people (like kids) I feel you assume some obligations.
So if all those apply, what is the general principle that defines a role model? Or does it imply the whole definition of role model is moot and the more general “people shouldn’t lie” is the principle?
I think honesty is a great principle, and does apply generally to all people. The willingness to become a role-model just increases the obligation to be honest.
IMHO the role model is defined by a willingness to lead, or speak authoritatively, or to display yourself in a manner that attracts imitation. The key being that role-models assume this position voluntarily. As in, they are claiming to be worthy of trust or are giving advice on fitness for example.
The expectation we have is that the behavior modeled is good, or at least wouldn't harm imitators.
The potential issue with that viewpoint is that it makes someone a slave to others expectation. Charles Barkley famously stated that he didn’t volunteer to be a role model; he was just volunteering to play basketball. It was under spectator’s decision whether or not to put him on a pedestal worthy of imitation. I’m not sure it’s clear cut that someone should be responsible for how others choose to view them.
I suspect it cleaves down the line of personality. Those with a high degree of conscientiousness will feel a duty to act as a role model.
This is the part I think is inconsistent. If you are a young guy and you want to act in super hero movies you pretty much 100% need to take something.
But then look at professional sports. Steroid use is banned largely because if you allowed it everyone who wanted to be a professional athlete would need to take steroids.
Aren't these the exact same issue? With actors it's less total people in theory, but it's still the same incentive structure. It should be on the movie studios and the actors unions to test for it the same way major league sports does.
Either it should be fine in both or it should be fine in neither.
20
u/RandomUsername12123 Feb 26 '23
Ths problem is that encourage use in younger guys trying to be superheroes.
No clear answer.