« Assorted links | Main | Larry Craig »
George Clooney
George Clooney is under attack:
In his new film, George Clooney plays a man who is at the end of his ropes so goes along with the schemes of a huge multinational corporation that harms people in their quest for making money.
In real life, George Clooney is a man who makes lots of money, but takes money to promote the products of a huge multinational corporation who promotes products that harms children.
The movie is the new Michael Clayton and the product is Nestle, in case you didn't know. Clooney responded: "I'm not going to apologize to you for trying to make a living every once in a while.''
The critique is that some mothers mix dirty water with the dairy formula and give their kids diarrhea, from which some of these kids die. (Yes I do know that breast milk has other health benefits for kids.) But isn't dehydration the major mechanism of death? Forgive me for sounding flip, but shouldn't Nestle be advertising its dairy products to mothers with kids with diarrhea, so then they wouldn't die? (Even dirty water is better to drink than doing nothing and usually it will save most lives, or so I have been told.) Isn't one way of looking at the problem that Nestle doesn't have good enough ads?
Flipness aside, Clooney supposedly is not being paid for his role in the movie, so his behavior raises a question for utilitarianism. Should not a saint work for evil causes, earn more money, and subsidize good causes with the surplus? I believe this depends on whether good or evil causes rely more on cash flow, whether good or evil causes invest resources more productively toward their good or evil ends, and the costs of mixing good and evil causes in terms of symbolic values.
Under what conditions will evil causes end up manned exclusively by good people?
Posted by Tyler Cowen on September 2, 2007 at 07:33 PM in Film | Permalink
Comments
I have a related question: Shouldn't Hilary return the money to Mr Hsu's victims?
(Clinton is donating $23,000 to charity this month, because its original giver, Norman Hsu, who is also a large donor to other candidates, was convicted many years ago of running a Ponzi scheme, and has recently turned himself in after years on the lam.)
It seems like every time a good person receives evil money, their first inclination is to donate the money to charity. Is that the best strategy?
Posted by: Henrik Mintis at Sep 2, 2007 8:13:39 PM
'Clooney responded: "I'm not going to apologize to you for trying to make a living every once in a while.'' '
Are we supposed to believe that if Clooney didn't take Nestle's filthy money that his own children wouldn't have shoes, or that he wouldn't be able to afford to do a pro bono project from time to time?
Posted by: John Mark Rozendaal at Sep 2, 2007 8:16:02 PM
"Under what conditions will evil causes end up manned exclusively by good people?"
About these people who are manning evil causes: what makes them "good people?"
Posted by: John Mark Rozendaal at Sep 2, 2007 8:19:28 PM
LOL, nice Clooney post! ;-)
>> Norman Hsu, who is also a large donor to other candidates, was convicted many years ago of
>> running a Ponzi scheme
Sounds like a great guy to head-up the Social Security program. ;-)
Posted by: Chris Meisenzahl at Sep 2, 2007 8:21:21 PM
If good people are working for evil causes what will the evil people be doing?
Posted by: Kyle at Sep 2, 2007 8:38:55 PM
Evil people often want the average person to think they are good (it makes their work easier).
Good people shouldn't care if the average person thinks they are evil. That would be vanity.
The usual problem is getting the average person to see that evil exists, so they act on the information.
Therefore evil organizations would be run exclusively by good people if they were educational to the general population (i. e. scandalously evil).
Posted by: Jason at Sep 2, 2007 8:47:52 PM
Kyle: The evil people will be manning good causes, I suppose, and trying to ruin them.
Posted by: Tyler Cowen at Sep 2, 2007 8:59:49 PM
"Even dirty water is better to drink than doing nothing and usually it will save most lives, or so I have been told."
Research by hearsay? Here: wikipedia is much better. Oral rehydration therapy.
Unless Nestle is selling ORF, advertising is not its problem: pushing dangerous practices for the third world is.
Posted by: Mike Huben at Sep 2, 2007 9:44:32 PM
Why should we presume that Clooney endorses the "message" (if there is a single, coherent message to be found) of movies that he appears in, even in the case that he takes no salary for appearing in them? Might not his appearance signal, rather, that he finds the message interesting, challenging, or original and not totally unworthy, as opposed to his proclaiming it categorically correct? Perhaps he believes that a film with such a message will be worthwhile in its totality, with whatever artistic, entertainment, or hortatory virtues as well as whatever flaws it may have, even if he does not fully subscribe to any particular reading of its message.
If so, there need not be any contradiction between Clooney's appearing in a film that seems, in whole or in large part, to communicate one moral message while conducting his life in a manner that's at least partly inconsistent with that message. So I don't see that the accusation of hypocrisy is adequately grounded in the facts presented.
Posted by: James at Sep 2, 2007 9:47:55 PM
Jason:
Why can't good people be vain? Being good does not mean being without fault.
If a good person is doing good work, and the average person thought that he/she was evil, wouldn't there be a chance that the good work was seen as evil as well? I think that this would be a hindrance to that good work.
Posted by: James2 at Sep 2, 2007 10:00:28 PM
I don't understand how selling a product to people who choose to purchase it is "evil."
I can understand saying that if the company was really really good, they would try to help the mothers more by offering them better choices, educating and doing all kinds of other good and helpful things.
But I don't see how NOT doing those things is evil. And I don't see how selling a product is evil. Nor advertising for said product. There is a difference between being not-especially-great and being *evil*.
As for George Clooney - he is just a good looking man who wants to make a buck. Leave him alone.
Posted by: liberty at Sep 2, 2007 10:42:04 PM
If the cause is evil, at what point do we have to start consider the people working for it evil as well? And how much damage does a "good" cause have to do before we'll acknowledge that it's actually evil?
Posted by: J at Sep 2, 2007 11:13:55 PM
James,
I don't think being good means being without fault, but I do think being good means recognizing your faults and trying to fix them (isn't that what we would like evil people to do?).
Someone without vanity wouldn't have a problem doing their good deeds anonymously. They also wouldn't have a problem letting everyone know they were doing good. But this is someone without vanity (which I doubt exists). Everyone else has some and should guard against it (if they are good and trying to fix their faults) and therefore should do their good anonymously.
Anonymous acts of good aren't going to be hindered by public opinion in the manner you mentioned.
And remember, Tyler didn't just mention “good people” he mentioned “saints.” When will these people work for evil? You saw my answer. (I'm sure his question was sarcastic, so we probably shouldn't take this too seriously.)
Posted by: Jason at Sep 2, 2007 11:16:50 PM
It seems like this picture of Clooney should be with the classical CD covers.
Also, one can learn about oral rehydration therapy by listening to Russ Roberts interview with Paul Romer.
Posted by: Rolo Tomasi at Sep 3, 2007 1:01:11 AM
The problem sounds like a water quality issue. Why is this Nestle's fault?e
Posted by: D at Sep 3, 2007 2:13:28 AM
Nestle is the target of an international boycott because of its aggressive marketing of baby foods. Nestle breaks the marketing requirements for baby foods adopted by the World Health Assembly more than any other company, so contributing to the unnecessary death and suffering of infants around the world.
Even Nestlé admits it is 'widely boycotted'. Let us hope George will investigate and support the boycott. See:
http://boycottnestle.blogspot.com/2007/08/george-clooney-nestle.html
Posted by: Mike Brady at Sep 3, 2007 2:22:09 AM
"Even dirty water is better to drink than doing nothing and usually it will save most lives, or so I have been told."
Good job, Sir, that you are an economist not a public health field worker in a developing country! 'So I am told' is a research reference, is it? Or are you simply being a modern day male version of Marie Antoinette, by suggesting kids with diarrhoea take Nestle formula milk?
How do you think a lot of kids in these countries get diarrhoea? Wait, I'll tell you. Visit a poor country with hardly any public water supply and then DO NOT drink bottled water, as tourists do. You will find out first-hand (and will likely never forget it either!).
And if all those years of promoting ORS as a remedy did not get through, do you believe Nestle advertising will?
Here is a story from my sister-in-law, a physician working in a deprived area:
A parent brings child in with diarrhoea. The child has classic dehydration signs.
Doctor: "Why, you have not been giving him water, tea etc!"
Parent: "Doctor Saab, every time he goes only water comes out; see his stomach is distended. It is full of water so we do not want to give him more. Won't it aggravate the situation?"
END OF STORY
Needless to say nearly 80% of her time is spent giving people basic hygiene and public health advice rather than 'curing' them.
I think you could have chosen a better example or done some more research...
Posted by: Shefaly at Sep 3, 2007 2:24:23 AM
"Evil people often want the average person to think they are good (it makes their work easier).
Good people shouldn't care if the average person thinks they are evil. That would be vanity."
This is not right. Practically everyone thinks that they are good people. When they are seen as evil nonetheless (and can even be said with some degree of objectivity to be evil) it's often for such reasons that they thought they could further a good cause with evil means, or that they've redefined the terms to better suit themselves.
Nestle are knowingly giving bad advice to mothers, causing harm to their children. I'm sure they don't think of themselves as bad people for doing this. Probably, like mr. liberty above, they can't see what's wrong with exploiting starving people's ignorance for personal gain. It's a free exchange, so both parties are better off in the objectivist-libertarian fantasy world.
There's nothing wrong with a little utilitarian thinking if you are deciding between doing one good thing and doing another good thing. But some things should a priori be assumed to be bad, not least because you cannot trust yourself to evaluate outcomes with much fairness or accuracy.
Posted by: Harald Korneliussen at Sep 3, 2007 5:04:26 AM
Please note, "I have been told..." by a specialist working in the field of diarrhea research.
Posted by: Tyler Cowen at Sep 3, 2007 7:10:46 AM
Sounds to me like a lack of clean drinking water is the problem, not baby formula. Instead of bashing the baby formula company for selling a product that needs water, which is a necessary "input" anyway, why not work to increase better inputs of water into the regions in question?
I guess the answer is that that would mean doing something productive instead of being self righteous. It is so much more fun to call a company evil than to come up with the money for people to buy clean water, noting that sustainably this means jobs, which means corporations, which leads to cognitive dissonance for anyone who acknowledgs that while also trying to keep the notion of evil companies in their head as the reason for the evils of the world.
Posted by: happyjuggler0 at Sep 3, 2007 7:27:16 AM
The real problem with Nestle is that they 'give' away the formula to the women in Africa, you know, 'gratis' but just enough until their breast milk dried up. La Leche League knows all about this. Bad show.
Yes it is capitalism and yes buyer beware... but also the gears of the free market depend upon good and true information so products may be selected with best value at the least price rising to the top. Deliberate clouding of information, even to the unsuspecting and uneducated is the true evil.
All that being said, I don't fault George Clooney for making a buck by using his image. If he were to look for a corporation to front for that had no evil attached to it, he'd look for a long long time. I personally look to John Patterson and the old NCR as a template for corporate responsibility... but that was a long time ago when community (as versus individuality) wasn't a dirty word - and the great paean of individuality wasn't a license for subverting common decency in our behaviors. I think George is great and on balance, his efforts for justice and a truly moral community are highly commendable.
Posted by: Ed D. at Sep 3, 2007 9:00:17 AM
"but shouldn't Nestle be advertising its dairy products to mothers with kids with diarrhea, so then they wouldn't die?"
No. ORF is better at that point. You (and most of the respondants) still haven't displayed any understanding of the causality of this public health issue. Maybe you should have listened to your expert a little longer or better.
Here's one source: International Baby Food Action Network.
I can just imagine how you'd sneer at somebody who got their economics as wrong as you've gotten this public health issue.
Posted by: Mike Huben at Sep 3, 2007 9:05:32 AM
"Nestle breaks the marketing requirements for baby foods adopted by the World Health Assembly more than any other company, so contributing to the unnecessary death and suffering of infants around the world"
If we're going to get into unnecessary death and suffering, how does the death toll from Nestle's activities compare to, say, our environmental movement's efforts to stop the use of chlorine - which would pretty much stop the diarreah problem in it's tracks - or their anti-DDT effort that kills a million people every year?
Posted by: J at Sep 3, 2007 11:19:31 AM
Debates about morality quickly become so convoluted that I can't follow them. Also, they involve conflicting and ultimately unresolvable conflicts in assumptions about the nature of good and evil and even whether good and evil really exist. So I shift toward things I can follow: technology.
Modest proposal for Nestle: Develop a cheap anti-bacterial water filter and include it with packages of baby formula. Then include marketing on how the water should be passed thru the filter into the container where the baby formula will be mixed in.
I figure Nestle has the resources needed to develop a cheap anti-bacterial water filter.
The solution would side step the need to answer difficult philosophical questions about good working for evil. My guess is the technical problem is easier to sort out than the ethical problem. So the protestors should refocus their efforts toward getting Nestle to develop cheap water filters.
Posted by: Randall Parker at Sep 3, 2007 12:13:13 PM
The baby milk charge is that Nestle or other milk powder pusher hard sells discounted milk powder to new mothers who then for the next year or so have no choice but to use it as the main source of nutrition for their babies. Using the powder often means using dirty water and that puts babies at greater risk of getting diarrhea in the first place because of poor quality water and difficulty in achieving the more challenging hygiene standards.
Once a child has diarrhea it might be worth continuing to supply even dirty water but it is obviously best not to catch it in the first place.
The parents will also find difficulty in purchasing the milk at the full price once the teaser rate expires potentially causing or exacerbating other health issues. That is to say once hooked parents have to spend more to deliver a dangerously inferior service to their child.
I'm not sure whether it is any longer a fair accusation but I fail to see how more advertising would make anything better and even Nestle have, I believe, admitted to problems of this type in some places in the past.
J, even supposing that chlorination of rivers and wells was an option and had anything at all to do with say being in favour of, say, low chlorine paper manufacture and that DDT was a cure-all and that someone was in fact campaigning against using it to combat malaria, how would that make a death-toll from Nestle's activities acceptable? That's a scary attitude.
Posted by: Jack at Sep 3, 2007 12:34:16 PM
