Is it permissible to cite the principle, "If the benefits outweigh the harms, then the benefits are given precedence over the harms," as justification for purposeful television series whose benefits outweigh their harms?

If a benefit and a harm coincide, if the benefit is predominant, it is given precedence; if the harm is greater, it is averted. Series that contain forbidden elements such as music, mixing (of genders), and the appearance of unveiled women are not permissible to watch due to their multiple harms. The benefits mentioned for them (such as entertainment, or understanding societal conditions or history) are either illusory or can be obtained through other means free from prohibitions. Averting harm takes precedence over acquiring benefit in this case, and the assessment of this matter rests with scholars, not individuals.