I can't stand Fear Factor and I NEVER turn it on. That being said, SOMEHOW I have still seen people eating eyeballs, spaghetti with pig's blood, etc. MANY TIMES. In fact, the show was being watched at a bar I was at a few months ago (The Anchor in Superior, WI--great place) on several TV's (including a big screen directly across from me), and I had to eat my delicious cheeseburger while someone was eating cow feces or whatever on the screen.

Apart from my personal experience, I think that if we want to ask what should be allowed on TV, it's best to start with two questions:

1) Should NOTHING be allowed on TV?
2) Should EVERYTHING be allowed on TV?

Question #1 seems pretty easy to answer simply by coming up with a couple of examples of what DEFINATELY should be allowed:

a) emergency warnings
b) weather station

Now, I wouldn't say that you couldn't come up with an argument against these (we shouldn't warn about emergencies because of overpopulation and...), but simply that they seem to be fairly reasonable.

#2: Should EVERYTHING be allowed on TV? In my mind, there are some good examples of what shouldn't be allowed:

a) rape of children
b) murdering children

Pretty reasonable, I think.

It seems, therefore, reasonable to think that we should allow some things to be broadcast and that we shouldn't allow other things. We probably don't disagree on this issue.

Now, the big question is, how should we decide what should and should not be allowed?

Most people who think it should be allowed on TV would probably point out at this time that the examples of acts we clearly should not allow that I gave above were both illegal. That's true. However, COPS shows illegal acts from time to time. I don't think they show murder, but they show burglary and whatnot. It seems to me, though, that showing an illegal act such as burglary is fine, so long as the show doesn't participate/aid/abet/support the act. And it still seems reasonable to think that we shouldn't show the rape or murder of children EVEN IF the show did not participate/aid/abet/support the act. If you want to hold the hard line on this point, then you'd have to claim that COPS should be banned.

If you're will me this far, I think we have to ask, why is it that rape/murder of children is worse (as a broadcast) than burglary? Let me suggest that it is because the visible imagery of the rape/murder of children is psychologically upsetting to SOME people. I don't think it would have to upset EVERYONE for it to be reasonable to think that we should not broadcast a proposed show. I also don't think it would merely have to be psychologically upsetting to ONE PERSON in order to ban something or other.

Thus far, I think I'm being pretty reasonable, don't you?

OK, now for the escape from the argument. I don't have a clue as to the best way to decide HOW MANY or WHAT PERCENTAGE of people who feel psychologically unsettled by a show is enough to warrant the pulling of a proposed show. Do you?

Perhaps, the most fitting practical way of dealing with the question in this, our capitalist society, is to say that we should let the lawsuit settlements vs. profits of the show decide the issue. Of course, that is sorta cheating on my part, by pushing the actual debate of the big question onto the lawyers. But, again, I don't have an answer. Here's why I don't:

I think the terms "right" and "wrong" and "good" and "bad" and "should" and "shouldn't" and all the rest like them point to illusions. By that, I mean that I don't think that anything really is "right" or "wrong" in a way that people have come to believe they are. I'm not going to go into this much further because debates on this topic, almost without fail, end up as linguistic debates in which the substance of the debate is lost.

However, the reason I bring up my fundamental beliefs about the illusory nature of ethics is because I want to explain why I think that we have to make practical decisions on matters such as what we allow on TV.

If nothing is right or wrong, and we believe that to be true (that is, if we believe it to be more likely than not), then that very view cannot make up any part of our motivation in acting. By that, I mean that if it isn't right or wrong to murder, then we have to look to our SECONDARY beliefs concerning murder in order to decide whether or not to do it. Basically, we have to throw aside our primary beliefs concerning right and wrong (those which we believe are most likely), and move to acting in a way that best satisfies the totality of other possible ethical views multiplied by the likelihood that we believe them to be true. For me, since such an equation is not easily computable on paper, the best option available is to ask, what is reasonable? And that is what I have done.

Finally, do I think it is reasonable to show Fear Factor on TV? Yes, but only with warnings beforehand, and I don't think they should be allowed to show the commercials. For example, if someone has made it a point to watch Seinfeld at 6:00, then I don't think they should have to have a remote handy DURING the show to flip away from something that is as psychologically upsetting to MANY as Fear Factor.