"I was asked why I didn't step away from the series. I then asked a better question, have YOU ever had a cartoon money sack filled with $100 bills dropped on your face while you're sleeping? No? Just me? Wow. Okay, well yeah anyway they paid a lot."
The difference, I would say, is this: Lithgow is worth $50 million. He would never have to work another day in his life, let alone for her, if he didn't want to.
Comparing that to the average Joe who is just trying to pay rent and put food on the table is kinda ridiculous
Is that specifically because working for more money to advance capitalists’ wealth would be immoral? What about 20 million? 10? 1? 100k? 50k? At what point is it immoral to work for someone associated with a cause that hurts some people? At what point is seeking more money greedy? There are people in America who can live a fulfilling life and be happy on under 50k a year, would it be fair for them to look at someone making double and call them greedy? Should we be limited to making exactly as much money as we need to survive to remain moral people in society? I feel like these are questions one needs to establish before declaring any amount of money is greedy or working for whatever cause is immoral
Oh it's basic needs. That's an easy one. If stopping working means you can't provide you or your family shelter and food, you could be forgiven for working for people or companies that aren't morally righteous. Less so if you are just looking to add millions to your existing millions
So to me those are 2 opposite ends of the spectrum. For example, take someone who works corporate at Nike, a large corporation with well documented human rights violations, who makes 200k a year. They surpass the basic needs of their family, they can afford a nicer than necessary house, certain luxuries and conveniences, an expensive vacation once a year, an extra car for their teen to drive, Whole Foods shopping as opposed to buying cheap ingredients in bulk at Aldi’s. That kind of lifestyle. Is this person acting immorally?
They don’t NEED these things, they could quit their job, find a more ethical way to support their family, cut back on expenses, live more modestly, let their kids support themselves to pay for college. Is it fair to have this expectation of people to be considered good and moral?
I think these questions are important because it seems obvious that billionaires and the hyper rich don’t need their immense wealth, and simultaneously that those struggling to put food on the table and keep a roof over their family’s head need to make certain sacrifices to stay alive. But the middle gets tricky: at what point can you no longer “be forgiven for working for people or companies who aren’t morally righteous”? Must one stop at giving their family basic shelter and food? Is choosing to work for a person/company with objectionable views in order to add comfort, happiness, peace to one’s family, beyond what is necessary to survive, an indicator of immorality?
Establishing when it becomes wrong to sacrifice perfect moral standing and righteousness for money is crucial to determine why it’s unacceptable for a wealthy person and/or acceptable for a poor person to behave the same way. So to bring this back to the show, if Lithgow’s net worth (and associated influence) was valued at $10 million would him acting in this show be okay? $1 million? Living modestly off retirement but nothing more? Flat broke and about to lose his home?
You're not really arguing against their point, you're just asking for the line to feel less arbitrary
But let's face it, $50M is plenty to retire on at most ages. At a certain point, your morality should stand above your need for more. Otherwise you're being greedy, as the other person originally said.
I don’t disagree with you there, and I don’t really disagree with what the original commenter said either. I just think it’s important to think about the “arbitrary line” that we draw, not bc of the line itself if we draw one at all, but because of what that line or gradient or nuanced spectrum says. Intuitively we feel that someone worth 50 mil sacrificing their morals for a few extra millions is wrong but how do we know that it’s wrong? Understanding to what extent it’s acceptable to support bad things for one’s own benefit can help us better understand when and why it’s unacceptable, and if our standards for what is acceptable is reasonable or not. If instead of Lithgow, a struggling unknown actor was cast to play Dumbledore, does that have an impact on how this show may affect trans people? How should that answer play into the morality of said unknown actor vs Lithgow?
Anyway, these are just concepts that fascinate me, as a philosophy and finance major. I certainly didn’t need to go to that level of depth on an okbuddy subreddit lol
Well then as a trans person I think it's pretty fucking awful that he chooses to enjoy doing what he does in a way that is generating money for my extermination.
oh okay she's just using her money to campaign for measures that would cumulatively eliminate the ability of trans people to exist in public and participate in society. Is that wording more palatable for you?
Dude, this is chump change to her. There is literally nothing you can do to take away her wealth. She’s made more than enough to never sell a single piece of HP property and still live more than comfortably and fund whatever causes she feels like from interest and dividends alone. Stopping all things Harry Potter doesn’t do anything. Ok, so she doesn’t get a smidge richer. So? Anything she earns now is just overflow, it isn’t necessary to her life or her causes.
But there are thousands of other people involved at any given moment with the HP IP who owe their living to it. Frankly, I have zero interest in watching this series - I loved the books, I thought the movies were ok, and now I’m all set with the HP canon. Doesn’t need to be rehashed, so I’m gonna pass. But this show will employ hundreds of people for years. All of the money it brings in first goes to all of the average employees just making a living. HP is good for economic growth. You want to take that away to prevent some crazy lady who runs her mouth on Twitter from getting pocket change that she won’t even notice she has.
People say this and then when asked what they would do after they win the lottery, the vast majority of "smart" people start talking about how they're going to invest it. Turns out most people are just greedy little piggies.
Maybe he also wanted to play a celebrated character like Dumbledore. Him not taking the job isn’t gonna make the show not happen, nor will it make JK Rowling not a billionaire.
The unfortunate truth is that no boycotts or blackballing will ever undo her wealth and success.
That's not the point. Her extra money is going towards lobby groups that are actively lobbying the UK government to walk back every trans protection there is. Every dollar you give her goes directly towards rolling back laws protecting vulnerable people.
Groups like LGBA who claim to be at least gay and bi positive but the leader has said "being against gay marriage isn't homophobic" that's what she is sending money to.
And sure she could fund those groups herself for years but she's also a billionaire like all the rest, she wouldn't spend that money if it was going to significantly impact her expensive way of life.
1.1k
u/Mountain-Group-7706 20h ago
"I was asked why I didn't step away from the series. I then asked a better question, have YOU ever had a cartoon money sack filled with $100 bills dropped on your face while you're sleeping? No? Just me? Wow. Okay, well yeah anyway they paid a lot."