The ethics of purchasing music.

[no country for old wainds]

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.

ITS BECAUSE OF PEOPLE LIKE YOU GEORGE W BUSH GOT VOTED IN!

What the musicians as well as the recording team choose to do with their own money is not my business or concern.

well yeah it is your concern if they end up bombing your city or something. i don't get this mentality. my apathy stems from the fact that the consequences aren't going to affect me in any negative way, not out of some 'you have the right to do what you want with your money' notion - if i felt like the band would use money to further something i hated (more than i loved their album) then i totally wouldn't give them any. common sense and all that.

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

where's the line drawn here then? this is why i find idealists pretty much uniformly hypocritical, because they only 'care' about their almighty causes when it doesn't inconvenience them too much

 

[Einherjar86]

well yeah it is your concern if they end up bombing your city or something. i don't get this mentality. my apathy stems from the fact that the consequences aren't going to affect me in any negative way, not out of some 'you have the right to do what you want with your money' notion - if i felt like the band would use money to further something i hated (more than i loved their album) then i totally wouldn't give them any. common sense and all that.

When a metal band bombs the city I live in, I'll give the rest of my money to you.

*cue Dethklok theme song*

Now, hypothetically:
If a metal band (that I like) came out and said that they were going to bomb Tampa with the money they make off of their album, then I wouldn't buy it; but not because of any moral cause. I wouldn't buy it because it would be stupid of me to do so. We have no moral obligation to censor the music we buy based on the artists' own ideals.

 

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

Just imagining that is fucking hilarious.

"Hey, this is John Tardy of Obituary. If you buy our new album, all proceeds will go to a fund to destroy our state."

 

[The Ozzman]

I would buy it just to see John Tardy blow shit up

 

[no country for old wainds]

When a metal band bombs the city I live in, I'll give the rest of my money to you.

*cue Dethklok theme song*

Now, hypothetically:
If a metal band (that I like) came out and said that they were going to bomb Tampa with the money they make off of their album, then I wouldn't buy it; but not because of any moral cause. I wouldn't buy it because it would be stupid of me to do so. We have no moral obligation to censor the music we buy based on the artists' own ideals.

k cool. what about if they said they were going to bomb paris (or any other city you don't have personal ties to)?

 

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

I'm all for that.

 

[no country for old wainds]

omg do you have no soul??

 

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

LOL YA

 

[waif]

(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.

Good post. I'm gonna ignore 1 and 2 because I agree with you on those. 3 is the interesting one.

What you said about how a band having no means to support themselves: In the case of three they'd be sponsoring terrorism, so I really don't have any problem with that. In the case of 1 and 2 that'd constitute persecution based on personal beliefs, which is uncool.

I don't really bother thinking about these things most of the time, but buying a CD is a financial transaction. If you go into a convenience store and buy a pack of gum, the guy who owns the store might be a nazi who uses it to finance terrorism, but is it really your responsibility to investigate who you buy from beforehand? On the other hand, if he has big swastikas in the window and a sign that says "10% of all proceeds go to the destruction of the Jewish people" I would probably choose to shop elsewhere.

Now, I realize that chewing gum is probably not the best analogy, as a black metal album, especially an NSBM one, will generally contain highly political lyrics. On the other hand, a lot of these guys don't print their lyrics (which strikes me as retarded; if you want to spread a message, don't scream it incomprehensibly, bury it in the production, release it on the most obscure label possible, and then not tell anyone what you said), so it's not necessary the most flawed analogy ever.

Now then, let's say that this convenience store has the best chewing gum in the world, an experience so good that it causes you to ejaculate repeatedly in your pants. But the owner says he'll give the money to terrorists planning on blowing people up. I think in this case you have to disregard the quality of the chewing gum and consider this: are you willing to contribute to terrorism? I think if you know that the money will go terrorism, you have a responsibility not to buy, provided of course that you don't endorse terrorism.

 

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

What a horrifically great analogy.

 

[waif]

I'm swinging between thinking it was a decent analogy and forehead slapping.

 

[no country for old wainds]

I think if you know that the money will go terrorism, you have a responsibility not to buy, provided of course that you don't endorse terrorism.

in other words you have a responsibility to yourself? i don't understand that notion and never have. the way i'd put it is 'if you know the money goes to terrorism and you're opposed to terrorism, then there's no way you would ever want to buy unless you're some kind of masochist'. the word responsibility just complicates things unnecessarily.

 

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

I think he means you have a responsibility not to indirectly endanger people.

 

[no country for old wainds]

the words 'provided you don't endorse terrorism' don't fit in with that (as it implies 'provided you don't endorse terrorism [in which case you have no such responsibility]'). unless im reading it wrong

 

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

Heh, yeah, that is a bit incongruous.

 

[waif]

in other words you have a responsibility to yourself? i don't understand that notion and never have. the way i'd put it is 'if you know the money goes to terrorism and you're opposed to terrorism, then there's no way you would ever want to buy unless you're some kind of masochist'. the word responsibility just complicates things unnecessarily.

The reason you would buy would be for the music, ldo.

I think he means you have a responsibility not to indirectly endanger people.

This. Thought that was clear.

the words 'provided you don't endorse terrorism' don't fit in with that (as it implies 'provided you don't endorse terrorism [in which case you have no such responsibility]'). unless im reading it wrong

If you don't endorse terrorism and neo-Nazism, then you shouldn't buy regardless of how awesome what you're buying is. If you're down with neo-Nazism obviously you would buy. Sorry for the confusion.

 

[no country for old wainds]

a sentence like 'a person who dislikes endangering people more than he likes an album won't buy a terrorists albums, whereas if that person did like endangering people he would' is just fact, cause and effect.

a sentence like 'people have a responsibility not to give money to those who will endanger people' is something else entirely and requires some sort of further justification (who decides what people are morally obligated to do?)

what you've been saying seems to jump from one to the other, which is what confuses me. where responsibility is concerned personal preference/desire/whatever is irrelevant, and vice-versa. in fact, duty by definition overrules personal preference. to say something like 'i have a duty to keep people from danger because i endorse keeping people from danger, but people who don't endorse it do not have that duty' is nonsensical

 

[waif]

The problem here is our definition of responsibility. I view responsibility as something that's self-imposed rather than an objective obligation.

 

[Einherjar86]

k cool. what about if they said they were going to bomb paris (or any other city you don't have personal ties to)?

Oh gods, please let them bomb Paris.

Just kidding.

Really man, I just don't make connections between a bands' ideals/politics and my own morals. They're not my responsibility.

 

[Zephyrus]

"objective obligation"

wat