A response to Nhan's "Altru-Bieber-ism"

For the most part I quite agree with you. In terms of Justin Bieber as an individual, it is very difficult to judge whether his philanthropy stems from an interest in the welfare of others, or his (producers?) desire to capitalize off of a likable persona. Additionally you raise a fair point by saying that a great deal of good does come from this philanthropy despite its questionable origin.

I do not, however, think the difficulty of an assessment of sincerity, nor the utility served by an attention-focusing persona, means that we ought to dismiss questions as to the authenticity of Justin Bieber or other celebrities involved in philanthropy or public events. As human beings we often seem to espouse a notion of justice which prefers to recognize those who act selflessly, and for others, as opposed to those merely working for their own good. This is to, to an extent, a christiological characteristic of many of our cultural icons and mythological heroes. Our conviction that a giving heart is to be praised ought to stand. If ever we might show the intentions of celebrities to be truly backward; and indeed, we should always be critical of those shaping public opinions and swaying the swooning hearts of teenage girls, then we ought to condemn those lacking in virtue seeking to capitalize off of our own good natures and love of kindness and generosity.

So while I agree with some of your points, I'd like to add that I think that we as social critics ought to always maintain a suspicion of celebrities in this way, acting as a voice of conscience to shed light on those abusing public trust or teenage ignorance. This position is not even to agree with the merits of selfless philanthropy, but to stress a potential role of those thinking critically about sincerity to the public sphere.

Original post here: http://the-goldenlink.blogspot.com/2012/03/altru-bieber-ism.html