The ethics of purchasing music.

[Cythraul]

Ok so I wasn't sure where to post this thread but I think it's better that it's here instead of in the metal part because the issue it deals with extends beyond the metal genre. In fact it extends beyond music, and even art/entertainment in general. Whatever. Whatever you do, please do not move this thread to the philosopher forum. Please.

I know of some people who, based on moral considerations, choose not to purchase NSBM albums and other albums released by bands who affiliate themselves with national socialism. This applies just as much to people who actually like some bands of that nature as it does to people who don't, since the former can simply download the albums or make copies from ones that other people have purchased. The moral reasons that people appeal to in most cases (as far as I can tell) for refraining from buying albums by such bands stem from the consideration that to purchase albums by such bands is to lend indirect financial support to causes one finds deeply wrong. Now, let me pretend for a moment that I'm actually a moral realist (google 'moral realism') and question whether on moral grounds one actually has a duty to refrain from the sort of indirect financial support I've just described.

Firstly, let me propose a principle about duties which will be relevant to the discussion. It goes something like this:

If there is an x such that x has a duty to refrain from doing P on the grounds that doing P would have the consequence C, then for any y, if y has a choice to either do or not do P and y's doing P would have the consequence C, then y has a duty to refrain from doing P.

Now let me explain in normal English. The principle would imply that if I have a duty not to give my suicidal friend a gun on the grounds that giving him a gun would have the consequence that he would shoot himself, then anybody else who actually has the choice not to give my suicidal friend a gun and whose giving my friend a gun would result in my friend shooting himself has a duty not to give my friend a gun.

Now let's consider three possible scenarios ranging from not-so-extreme to pretty extreme.

(1) Suppose I like some band. Let's call this band Aryan Warriors of Eternal Anti-Jewdom (AWEAJ for short). Suppose the members of AWEAJ profess adherence to national socialist ideology. Further, suppose that although they profess such adherence, they don't act on these beliefs in any way. That is, they don't belong to any organization, nor do they engage in any acts against "undesirables", nor do they hand out leaflets outside high schools. Do I have a duty to refrain from giving these fellows financial support? The answer is pretty clear to me, and the answer is 'No'. After all, what horrible consequences come about as a result of it? They simply have unpopular opinions (I am arguing against the duty on consequentialist grounds (google 'consequentialism') though I suppose an argument could be made against my view on consequentialist grounds as well. At any rate, the case under consideration is certainly the easiest one out of the possible "unethical" music buying situations).

(2) Suppose I really like AWEAJ, but they not only adhere to national socialist ideology, they also give support to a national socialist organization with their own money. However, suppose this organization is totally non-violent. They don't do anything illegal, and they don't really do anything immoral. They just have a little website, they have the occasional rally, and sometimes they even LARP in the woods with guys like Rob Darken. Do I have a duty to refrain from giving these guys my financial support? The answer is a little less clear than it was in the first scenario, but I'm leaning towards 'No'.

(3) Suppose I really like AWEAJ, and suppose they support a national socialist organization with their own money. But furthermore, suppose this organization has been known to engage in illegal and immoral acts, such as violence against "undesirables". Let's suppose for the sake of discussion that AWEAJ doesn't actually engage in such acts; they just give the organization money. Do I have a duty to refrain from giving AWEAJ my financial support? I'm not sure. The answer would perhaps seem to be 'Yes', but might there be good reason to doubt that?

Let's apply the principle about duties that I proposed to the cases under consideration. If I have a duty to refrain from giving financial support to AWEAJ on the grounds that it would constitute indirect financial support for their cause, then anybody else who has the choice to refrain from financially supporting AWEAJ and whose financial support would result in indirect financial support for their cause has a duty to refrain from financially supporting AWEAJ. But buying somebody's album is not the only way to give someone financial support. Employing somebody at a company is also a way to give someone financial support. Notice that employers have a choice whether or not to hire somebody, and notice also that their financial support is also potential financial support for whatever cause the employee is involved in. This would mean that if I have a duty not to give financial support to the members of AWEAJ by not buying their albums, then employers also have a duty not to give financial support to members of AWEAJ by not hiring them. We can multiply examples by simply thinking about more forms of financial support. What is the consequence of all this? It would seem to be that, in a society of people who were all aware of AWEAJ's allegiances, if I have a duty to refrain from financially supporting AWEAJ, then a very large number of other people do as well, and if everybody follows their duty, then AWEAJ would have almost no means of sustenance. Is this an acceptable consequence? It seems pretty insane to me. It certainly wouldn't be acceptable in scenario (1), but what about the other two scenarios?

I realize that what I'm saying might not make a whole lot of sense to any of you, but if you follow what I'm getting at, do you agree with my reasoning here? If not, where have I gone wrong? Is the duty principle wrong? Is the consequence I draw from its application wrong? Am I a ridiculous person?

Do any of you think that we have a duty not to financially support bands like AWEAJ? If so, then in which of my three scenarios would we have such a duty? If you don't think we ever have any such duty, why do you think that?

Oh and I realize that some people simply refrain from financially supporting NS-affiliated bands just because they feel "icky" about possibly financially supporting a cause they don't like without actually thinking that other people are obligated to refrain as well. However, I should say that if you genuinely think that financially supporting a certain cause is morally wrong then there's no reason to think that other people are justified in not refraining.

Sorry for the long post. I'm sure I'll get a few tl;dr's.

 

[SentinelSlain]

I disagree. Say a band memberof AWEAJ works at a Lidl store on the tills, he wears his uniform, not a band shirt, he doesn't cause a fuss with customers because he needs his job, how the hell do the employers know he has a little band going that some people on the internetz think are tru and so on but the average guy on the street has never heard of. Even if they did know, and it might well crop up, do they even know about NSBM or do they just know he's in a metal band and not digged deeper because they aren't interested?

If you actually know what's going on and you support it then that's a different matter.

I have seen a video featuring uk Oi! bands talking about where the funding went, brandishing the guns they bought etc. Bands like skrewdriver funded c18 and the like who did the types of things you were talking about. I believe it was actually the main source of money. That was in the 80s and 90s and that was punk not metal but you're simplifying it down so that shouldn't matter.

 

[BlackMetalWhiteGuy]

I understand what you're saying and I don't feel that I have a duty to not support any specific band, but I also don't have any interest in educating myself about their ideologies, political or otherwise. Consequently, even if such a duty might be present, I would likely not realize it, because I don't care about any aspect of any band beyond the sound that they produce.

 

[no country for old wainds]

other than for the purposes of trolling i haven't felt the need to imbue my preferences with some greater value for a long time (which is all morality is as far as i can tell), so i never run into these difficulties. in other words no, concepts like duty are alien to me.

i would be more likely to give money in the case of 2 & 3 than 1, solely because in those two scenarios you 'really like' this band but in the first you just 'like' them. fortunately the world works in a way that means people with retarded ideologies/allegiances normally make retarded music, so this doesn't really occur anyway.

 

[Cythraul]

I disagree. Say a band memberof AWEAJ works at a Lidl store on the tills, he wears his uniform, not a band shirt, he doesn't cause a fuss with customers because he needs his job, how the hell do the employers know he has a little band going that some people on the internetz think are tru and so on but the average guy on the street has never heard of. Even if they did know, and it might well crop up, do they even know about NSBM or do they just know he's in a metal band and not digged deeper because they aren't interested?

If you actually know what's going on and you support it then that's a different matter.

All of that is consistent with what I've said, so I'm not exactly sure how it's an objection to my view.

i would be more likely to give money in the case of 2 & 3 than 1, solely because in those two scenarios you 'really like' this band but in the first you just 'like' them. fortunately the world works in a way that means people with retarded ideologies/allegiances normally make retarded music, so this doesn't really occur anyway.

I didn't mean to imply that the degree of liking varied between the different scenarios. Assume that I like AWEAJ to the same degree in every scenario.

 

[Onder]

Ok. It doesn't matter to me if the person gives money to some nazi organisation or not when he obviously has nazi beliefs. I just wouldn't buy his cd and I wouldn't support him in any way. And I wouldn't even employ a guy in my Lidl if he had swastika on his shirt. Sometimes I hate nazis even more than "undesirables".

 

[SentinelSlain]

I wasn't saying he's a nice guy, he maybe gets involved in racial violence in his spare time but they don't know that. If they don't know then it's ok for them to employ him, it's not up to them to find out, however if the buyer of his CDs DOES know...

 

[skeptik]

The extended consequence of the duties of the rest of society to these types of individuals is actually something that has crossed my mind frequently whenever such a topic as this has been brought up, so I'll just say that I agree with what you wrote.

 

[Zephyrus]

There are risks to establish such benchmarks along a spectrum of political extremity (from pacific to militant et al.). Given enough time, ideologies can shift, at least in intensity and a band you once thought was harmless two years ago now goes out and commits deadly hate crimes. The money that supported such acts could very well have included what you spent on that band's albums back when they were perceived to be harmless.

That is why people draw the line to omit any NSBM (or the like) from their purchasing. Ideology, and more so one's fervor for that ideology, are too fluid to trust their consistency over time.

 

[skeptik]

In most cases for bands of this nature, unless you're buying directly from the band, they don't see a penny from you. Most 'underground' bands do not receive money per album purchased but rather receive a number of CDs to sell on their own. So basically the furthest you could extend this argument is that by buying their CDs, you are participating in extending the demand for their product and are thus enabling them to create more product. That is, of course, unless you're buying directly from the band.

 

[challenge_everything]

If anyone wants to draw the line at indirectly lending financial support to NS bands, then by the same principle there are a lot of "activities" they should be boycotting which lead to socially undesirable outcomes: wearing brand name clothes (sweatshops), certain foods and companies that produce food (GM crops, environmental degradation, unsustainable production etc), cars (environmental degradation, oil companies fucking up third world countries to get oil ie Shell in Nigeria), etc etc I can go on.

I try to do my best to live a principled life but sometimes you have to compromise your ideals for the sake of practicality.

 

[Zephyrus]

Very good point, which is why I never draw any line myself. I'm actually arguing against drawing any line, since bands can go either way across that line over time. The impracticality of it all that you are pointing out simply reinforces my point.

 

[The Butt]

I see no problem with purchasing albums from artists with... controversial beliefs. They've put work and effort into creating a piece of art to be enjoyed... it's only right that I pay them for it if I enjoy it, beliefs or actions aside.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

I agree, especially given that I don't align myself with shitty beliefs anyway, so it's not hard for me to go "I support this". Hell I just bought the new inExordium CD direct from the band last night...they're a Christian band from Australia, used to be Paramaecium. I felt nice supporting them so whatever. Usually I do not buy direct from bands but from labels. I believe supporting labels is a healthy thing to do in metal, unless it's like Century Media or something (though I do buy from them here and there).

 

[ShredHeadJHJ]

Let me see if I got this together...

I personally do not care what bands I support do with their money. I don't look at it like supporting them is supporting racism, for example. My money is spent on the music in this case. There's no "moral issue" there with me. I will never be able to put a stop to what they do by not sending my money their way. I will be dead before too much longer anyways, we all will.

About "humanity's duty to not indirectly fund beliefs that we don't believe in"...? People will always find a way to fund their cause if they have followers. Not everyone is going to look into it enough to relate buying a band's album with their shitty beliefs.

 

[Zephyrus]

Thinking it is wrong to buy music from politically radical bands isn't far from thinking you're supporting terrorism because you tipped your cab driver who the next day blew himself up in front of an embassy.

 

[MasterOLightning]

Any money a band might get from a CD I purchased, or from purchases based on my recommendations, is too inconsequential for me to worry about. It's surely on the order of pennies, unless it was a direct sale that netted the band a few dollars.

 

[Einherjar86]

Good thread.

I completely ignore a musician's/band's political ideals. They make music. If the music is good, I'll buy the album. I don't agree with National Socialist Black Metal, but if I enjoy a band that supports those beliefs I'll buy their album. I also don't agree with Roger Waters' radically socialist views, but I still buy his albums too.

The moneys spent by organizations that bands are affiliated with has no impact on my purchasing choices. A record is priced based on what went into it. Money for a record doesn't only go to the musicians. There are lots of other work that goes into it, and those people deserve to be paid. What the musicians as well as the recording team choose to do with their own money is not my business or concern.

 

[AchrisK]

I am looking forward to reading the opening post, eventually.

 

[SentinelSlain]

Thinking it is wrong to buy music from politically radical bands isn't far from thinking you're supporting terrorism because you tipped your cab driver who the next day blew himself up in front of an embassy.

Why do you find it logical to ignore the way knowing about something creates a responsibility that wasn't there before.