The Ethics Of Competing In Reality TV

On November 2023, Netflix released their reality TV adaptation of Squid Game called Squid Game: The Challenge. The premise was largely similar to the original South Korean drama as 456 players competed for a chance to win 4.56 million dollars.

When the show ended and a winner was declared, many of its viewers were critical of players who opted for “selfish” strategic gameplay and this reaction was very odd to me. Nearly every other competitive reality show has its fair share of strategic players who employed similar tactics and they didn’t receive as much hate.

So the question has to be asked: Where is the line drawn? So in this article, let’s explore the ethics of competitive reality shows and see at what point strategy turns into pure villainy.

The Appeal Of Competitive Reality

Competitive reality shows have always been the go-to source if you want to watch people play competitively in ways that cannot be seen in fictional shows. Shows like Survivor, Ink Master, The Amazing Race, and Big Brother have captured the attention of audiences because of how they pit people against each other for a large cash prize.

While fictional game shows like Alice in Borderland, Total Drama Island, and even Squid Game do a good job at showcasing drama in a game show setting, there is a certain level of predictable that comes with scripted dramas and, as a result, we can predict when somebody gets eliminated.

Compared to competitive reality shows, there is a certain level of unpredictability that always keeps us guessing and wondering why would people make certain decisions. There is a reason why shows like Survivor have lasted for over 40 seasons, and it is because every season features many pivotal and questionable gameplay from its contestants that always keep their viewers and even the show’s producers on edge.

It is because of this unpredictable nature that competitive reality shows offer drama and conflict among contestants with diverse backgrounds and personalities. In fact, we are most intrigued by how competition can affect people’s personalities and decision-making.

While it is safe to assume that the majority of people who compete in reality shows are good-natured people, watching their morality deteriorate or stand strong over time is something that many people find fascinating. So when people watch contestants employing moral or immoral strategies, we can’t help but be invested to see if it pays off.

Finding Ethics In Competitive Reality

When it comes to defining morality in a competitive setting, there are many different angles that we can use to approach this. However, what makes defining contestant’s morality in competitive reality shows so difficult is the fact there are a lot of factors to consider such as intention, frequency, and justification. So let’s go over some of the most popular ethical theories that reality show contestants tend to practice.

Utilitarianism: For The Greater Good

Utilitarianism is a consequentialist ethical theory that evaluates morality based on the outcomes and the overall happiness or utility they produce. First proposed by philosophers like Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, the basic idea behind the theory is that an action is moral just if it leads to the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people.

In the context of reality TV, most contestants create alliances as a means to further their positions in the game. We see this in nearly every competitive reality show, however, we see it particularly more in shows like Survivor where contestants form numerous alliances within their respective tribes to gain a majority when they have to vote somebody out.

From a utilitarian perspective, any decision that benefits the majority of the people is considered a moral and ethical decision. However, in the context of reality shows, this would fall more into the subcategory of ‘Preference Utilitarianism’ which emphasizes the importance of satisfying people’s preferences as a way of maximizing overall happiness.

This would mean contestants who are in the majority of an alliance are fulfilling their moral and ethical obligation when they are voting out those in the minority because it is fulfilling a preference that benefits the whole group. However, this utilitarian perspective can be challenged as unethical, because it invites a question of intentions as there are contestants who specifically form alliances to harm others emotionally or selfishly for personal gain.

Deontology: Upholding Moral Duties

Deontology is a non-consequentialist ethical theory that emphasizes there are inherent moral duties and principles that we must adhere to, regardless of the consequences. Proposed by Immanuel Kant, he characterizes ethics by emphasizing moral duty and how an action is morally right if it can be universalized (meaning that everyone should be able to act in the same way without contradiction).

It is a trickier theory to practice in the context of competitive reality shows because contestants face ethical dilemmas when their morality conflicts with strategic gameplay. For example, many competitive reality shows require contestants to lie, manipulate, and deceive their rivals to advance in the game.

From a deontological perspective, this raises concerns about the violation of moral principles such as honesty, integrity, and respect for others. As a result, contestants who prioritize winning over these principles may be seen as acting unethically.

However, considering that the very nature of reality TV blurs the line between personal ethics and the rules of the game. Contestants enter these shows voluntarily and agree to participate in a highly competitive environment with the understanding that strategic gameplay is essential. From this perspective, the moral duty to play the game as intended by the producers can outweigh the duty to be entirely truthful and virtuous because it is voluntary.

Virtue Ethics: Test Of Personal Character

Virtue ethics is an ethical theory that focuses on the development of character traits and the pursuit of moral excellence. Unlike deontology (which emphasizes rules and duties) and consequentialism (which emphasizes outcomes), virtue ethics defines morality by choosing actions based on virtuous traits such as honesty, courage, compassion, integrity, wisdom, justice, and kindness.

In the context of competitive reality shows, contestants’ personal character and the values they display during the competition come under scrutiny for a variety of reasons. Contestants who consistently engage in deceitful or manipulative tactics are going to be perceived as distrustful and possibly lack virtues such as honesty, fairness, and empathy. In this light, their actions could be seen as not only unethical within the context of the game but also as reflections of their true character.

However, contestants who consistently or overtly showcase virtuous qualities may come off as pompous, pretentious, and possibly disingenuous due to the nature of the competition. While this perception may vary from person to person, virtue ethicists would argue that contestants who display virtuous qualities throughout the competition are more likely to be viewed as ethical people, regardless of their strategic choices.

Despite this perception problem, there are competitors out there who strictly play with honor and integrity and while they may not make it far into the competition, they are often content with their placement, because they would rather lose honorably than betray their values. This, of course, makes these kinds of players the most ethical by a landslide, but also the least likely to win by default.

The Gray Area: When Strategy Becomes Villainy

Competitive reality shows are inherently structured to encourage strategic gameplay. Contestants are frequently required to form alliances, strategize, and make calculated moves to secure their position in the game. However, ethical dilemmas arise when these strategic actions cross a moral boundary and become villainous.

Persuasion Vs. Manipulation

Manipulation and persuasion are two related yet distinct methods of influencing the thoughts, feelings, and actions of others. In the context of competitive reality shows, there is a very thin line between the two that can easily turn persuasion into manipulation. Persuasion is characterized by its ethical and transparent nature, with the intent to convince someone based on the merits of an argument or information presented. It relies on honesty, logic, and shared values and aims for a mutually beneficial outcome.

In contrast, manipulation involves unethical tactics such as deceit and trickery. It is driven by a hidden agenda that serves the manipulator’s interests, sometimes at the expense of the person being manipulated. Manipulators may use emotional or psychological tactics to fulfill their goals, often disregarding the other person’s autonomy, and resulting in harm or negative consequences.

One of the earliest and most notable manipulations seen in competitive reality shows was on Survivor’s seventh season, Survivor: Pearl Islands, where one of the contestants, ‘Johnny Fairplay’ lied that his grandmother had passed, fooling his competitors and even the production staff. The tactic was effective, and he gained sympathy and any possible edge at a relatively late point in the game.

With that in mind, the key difference between manipulation and persuasion is intent. Persuasion respects the autonomy and moral principles, meanwhile, manipulation exploits people’s vulnerabilities. While manipulation can be a legitimate strategy to build alliances or gain an advantage in a competition, it can also venture into villainous territory that makes competitors known as manipulators who embody deception, coercion, or emotional exploitation. In the case of Johnny Fairplay, he is forever known as the man who lied about his dead grandma.

Loyalty Vs. Betrayal

Loyalty and betrayal represent contrasting behaviors and attitudes in interpersonal relationships. In every competitive reality show, loyalty is tested especially in scenarios when competitors are offered a lucrative chance to advance further in the game. As alliances are a common strategy to ensure contestants’ safety in the game, breaking them can make contestants be perceived as villainous, however, the context of the betrayal can ultimately redeem depending on the scenario.

Deontology and Virtue Ethics would emphasize the importance of keeping one’s word and respecting agreements no matter what unless the person they made the promise to is being unacceptably immoral and villainous. For example, if Ali in Squid Game discovered Sang Woo’s cold villainous intentions from the beginning, nobody would blame him if he decided to betray Sang Woo when they were playing marbles.

However, Ali did not notice it and Sang Woo betrayed Ali when he was about to lose. Sang Woo’s indifference when he betrayed one of his closest friends in the game is what makes his actions villainous by far, so any competitor in reality shows who exhibits similar kinds of behavior is sure to be labeled as villainous.

Sportsmanship Vs. Winning At Any Cost

In competitive reality shows, the principles of sportsmanship and winning at any cost are often prominently on display. Participants who exhibit sportsmanship, treat fellow contestants with respect, and accept both victory and defeat gracefully, serve as positive role models, emphasizing fair play and integrity.

On the other hand, some contestants who adopt a “win at any cost” mentality, resort to unethical strategies like deception and manipulation, creating drama and conflicts for entertainment value. These participants may prioritize their success over ethical considerations, potentially leading to negative portrayals and viewer backlash.

The balance between sportsmanship and winning at any cost varies on the show’s format and the values promoted by its creators, showcasing the complexities of competition in the world of reality television. Netflix’s Squid Game: The Challenge is a clear example of a show that promoted the narrative of how far people would go to win the largest cash prize in game show history.

Throughout the show, we see a number of competitors actively manipulating and deceiving each other in order to further their position in the game. While their success was dependent on their performance throughout multiple games, the fact that there is only one victor allowed for the largest cash prize in game show history is more than enough reason for people to embody a “win at any cost” mentality.

While the loophole in Deontology would allow competitors to play the game as naturally intended and would give them a moral justification to employ a “win at any cost” mentality, however, if it goes beyond the basic means of manipulation and betrayal then it crosses the lines from moral to immoral. Actions such as excessive gloating, verbal abuse, or sabotaging others’ chances can damage the spirit of fair play and can make competitors come off as villainous.

Are You Willing To Win At Any Cost?

Competing in reality TV is a complex ethical endeavor, where contestants are constantly forced to navigate the fine line between strategy and villainy. By applying ethical theories such as utilitarianism, deontology, and virtue ethics, we can better understand the moral dilemmas contestants face and the principles they should consider when making strategic decisions.

Ultimately, the ethics of competing in reality TV challenge contestants to balance their desire for victory with their moral responsibilities to their fellow competitors, the audience, and themselves. In this high-stakes environment, contestants must strive to be both strategic and ethical, recognizing that true success is not just about winning the game but also about upholding moral principles and preserving their own integrity. Unless they want to be a villain, then they can do whatever they want.

If you liked what you read, be sure to like and follow for more related content!