Post hoc activism.

Great Debates
1

I am asking what thoughts there are about people who become activists for some cause/disease/issue/etc. only AFTER it affects them.
The biggest example are celebrities whose children or selves have contracted some syndrome or disease and THEN they get on the bandwagon to raise money or public awareness.

Yes, it bothers me. But my moral question is Do they have to?
Let’s say some celebrity has been involved with organ donation for many years (for no personal reason, it’s just something they believe important), and then their kid is killed by a guy who was let out of prison too soon due to overcrowding. So they drop their organ donation activism and start in with activism against early prisoner release.

Is it a moral responsibility to become an activist post hoc whatever?

Or are they using the activism to deal with it emotionally?

2

People cannot be aware of the full extent of all problems. This is simply inherent in information flow, limited life span, and the limits of the capacity of human sensation and cognition. Therefore we will often revise our opinions on many subjects over time, and in doing so, alter their priority. The impetus from this could be Crucible-esque or it could just be reading about it in the local paper.

3

The major one I recall is where Jerry Lewis was criticized for making a laughingstock of people with no muscle control, then he went all out to raise money for that exact charity.

4

People, including celebrities, don’t have to do anything and it’s always struck me as odd that anyone thinks they should.