The ethics of purchasing music.

[waif]

as in, I don't believe in responsibility in an absolute moral sense, but rather as something that each person imposes on themselves and others.

 

[no country for old wainds]

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

k yeah that is part of the problem, i understand. in that case though there's still an 'objective obligation' as you call it because even though you're not saying 'people shouldn't fund terrorists', you are saying 'people shouldn't fund terrorists if they don't endorse terrorism' which is another way of saying 'people should put their values ahead of their desires' (or something along those lines). if i'm right that that's what you've been saying, then that's still a general claim about ethical responsibility, rather than something that's self-imposed by each individual. it's kind of like saying 'we should impose upon ourselves responsibilities because we have a responsibility to do so'

 

[waif]

okay, yeah, I see what you're saying.
but yeah, that's what I'm saying. I'm not saying where people have to draw the line, but everyone has to decide where they stand. Someone could oppose terrorism but still buy because they draw the line farther out. As far as ethical responsibility, that's not what I'm saying. Each person has their own morals and values and breaking points and forms their expectations and concepts of responsibility based on that.

 

[no country for old wainds]

okay, yeah, I see what you're saying.
but yeah, that's what I'm saying. I'm not saying where people have to draw the line, but everyone has to decide where they stand. Someone could oppose terrorism but still buy because they draw the line farther out. As far as ethical responsibility, that's not what I'm saying. Each person has their own morals and values and breaking points and forms their expectations and concepts of responsibility based on that.

cool that's resolved then, i'm all for drawing a fixed line with these things

 

[zabu of nΩd]

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.

So if, say, someone creates a painting you really like and plan to buy, but the proceeds from the painting go directly toward funding the purchase of a gun so the artist can commit a school shooting, you have no problem buying that painting from them even if you know what they're going to do with the money?

 

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

They're probably gonna get the money somehow anyway. These are all dumb examples though imo.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

They're probably gonna get the money somehow anyway.

Well sometimes boycotting works and sometimes it doesn't. But one thing you can be sure of is that giving in and supporting them is only going to make things worse.

 

[AchrisK]

To my surprise, no country for old wainds is making the most sense in this thread so far. This "responsibility" seems to imply an agreed upon set of moral values. Given Cythraul's extreme example, to say that there exists a level of responsibility is to say that racism is wrong and that violent acts against another person is wrong. So let's assume there are absolute moral stadards. Even then that does not mean everyone, or anyone, cares. Of course some do care, but each person cares to varying degrees. The spectrum of views on the issue is huge. Of those who disagree with racism you have everyone from the person who will not listen to NSBM, to those who will not own it, to those who will not purchase it, to those who will not purchase it new, to those who will purchase it (new or used) and question themselves, to those who will purchase it (new or used) who will not really give it a second thought. Then you have the whole range for those who don't think about NSBM issues or don't care. And then finally you have the range of reactions from those who agree with NSBM ideals.

We all make "moral" decision every day, as Challeng eEverything pointed out. It's a constant balance (or imbalance) between what we know, how much we care about a given issue, and how much we are willing to be inconvenienced by our ideals.

 

[Einherjar86]

So let's assume there are absolute moral stadards.

But there aren't. There are personal moral standards. Nothing is universal. Therefore the argument is difficult to make.

 

[BlackMetalWhiteGuy]

But there aren't.

You're not assuming hard enough

 

[AchrisK]

But there aren't. There are personal moral standards. Nothing is universal. Therefore the argument is difficult to make.

I disagree about there being absolute moral standards, but that is not necessarily what we are talking about. But you are right that with the assumption of only personal standards, an argument is difficult, even impossible, to make. If one believes that there are only personal standards, then there is no possible way to assign any level or responsibility to anyone other than yourself, and even that is subject to change. That is, unless you SAY you don't believe in absolutes, but in your heart you know there are. I believe that to be the case for most people who say they do not believe in absolutes tbh.

 

[cookiecutter]

I'm not great at arguing philosophy but I agree with Cythraul. I am not a moral realist (at least I don't think I am like the first paragraph of the wikipedia article I read) but I do think not supporting someone you know will cause violence is a preferable moral idea. I don't know really how to argue that point though, maybe someone else can help me out.

I'd also like to respond to some people in the thread.

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.

That is a poor analogy, since in example 3 you know that the band will support violence, whereas you do not know the cab driver would in your analogy. If you did you would choose not to ride that taxi.

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.

But if everyone thought that, the band would make a lot of money. It's the same principle as saying one vote will not matter.

 

[Einherjar86]

I disagree about there being absolute moral standards, but that is not necessarily what we are talking about. But you are right that with the assumption of only personal standards, an argument is difficult, even impossible, to make. If one believes that there are only personal standards, then there is no possible way to assign any level or responsibility to anyone other than yourself, and even that is subject to change. That is, unless you SAY you don't believe in absolutes, but in your heart you know there are. I believe that to be the case for most people who say they do not believe in absolutes tbh

True. Good response. Still, I find it difficult to assume that there are absolute moral standards; and if there aren't, then we have no absolute moral obligation to boycott a band's albums. All we have are our own personal morals/ethics.

I can't bring myself to believe that there are absolute moral standards. Believe me, I wish there were. But personally, while I disagree with certain ideals (such as National Socialism and racism), they're completely legitimate when you disregard a system of universal morality. Even Hitler's regime can be sympathized with when you wrap your brain around the notion that they truly believed in what they were doing. They felt morally sound. I realize this is a controversial stance, but it's what I feel. You can argue with people whose morals might be questionable, and you can try and convince them they're wrong; but you cannot say that they are "absolutely" wrong.

I've argued this point before, and I don't want to derail the thread. I gave this explanation to justify my stance on the ethics of buying music. That's all I meant to do.

 

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

"There are no absolutes..."
"But...that's an absolute!"

 

[Cythraul]

True. Good response. Still, I find it difficult to assume that there are absolute moral standards; and if there aren't, then we have no absolute moral obligation to boycott a band's albums. All we have are our own personal morals/ethics.

I can't bring myself to believe that there are absolute moral standards. Believe me, I wish there were. But personally, while I disagree with certain ideals (such as National Socialism and racism), they're completely legitimate when you disregard a system of universal morality. Even Hitler's regime can be sympathized with when you wrap your brain around the notion that they truly believed in what they were doing. They felt morally sound. I realize this is a controversial stance, but it's what I feel. You can argue with people whose morals might be questionable, and you can try and convince them they're wrong; but you cannot say that they are "absolutely" wrong.

I've argued this point before, and I don't want to derail the thread. I gave this explanation to justify my stance on the ethics of buying music. That's all I meant to do.

Here's a little something for you to consider: People typically do not just have values or moral preferences without having reasons that are amenable to rational scrutiny which they use to support their values or moral preferences. Even people who believe that morality is ultimately just a matter of personal preference, have reasons for their own preferences, and these reasons typically will involve some beliefs about matters of fact. So if I can show that such people are wrong about the matters of fact, I can show that their preferences are less than rational. I think it's hardly ever the case that people just have bare preferences with respect to how the world should be or how people should act. Even national socialism supports its own moral conclusions with certain claims about how things actually are in the world. It seems to me that in actual practice we often only need to show somebody is wrong about particular matters of fact to defeat their moral beliefs. But I would agree that moral beliefs at a certain level don't seem quite as amenable to rational scrutiny or discussion.

edit: sorry if this post isn't very well thought out. I'm kind of tired right now.

 

[waif]

To my surprise, no country for old wainds is making the most sense in this thread so far. This "responsibility" seems to imply an agreed upon set of moral values. Given Cythraul's extreme example, to say that there exists a level of responsibility is to say that racism is wrong and that violent acts against another person is wrong. So let's assume there are absolute moral stadards. Even then that does not mean everyone, or anyone, cares. Of course some do care, but each person cares to varying degrees. The spectrum of views on the issue is huge. Of those who disagree with racism you have everyone from the person who will not listen to NSBM, to those who will not own it, to those who will not purchase it, to those who will not purchase it new, to those who will purchase it (new or used) and question themselves, to those who will purchase it (new or used) who will not really give it a second thought. Then you have the whole range for those who don't think about NSBM issues or don't care. And then finally you have the range of reactions from those who agree with NSBM ideals.

You say we should assume a set of absolute moral standards, but the example to which you try to apply it actually contradicts that. We can all agree that human beings almost always believe themselves to be justified in what they do - that their moral code endorses their actions, and when it doesn't they tend to stretch that moral code. Occasionally we commit some action that our moral codes won't stretch to cover, and then we experience guilt, but nobody adopts a controversial ideology like neo-Nazi terrorism if it makes them feel guilty. Thus we can assume that AWEAJ feel that it is morally right for them to blow up Jewish businesses or whatever aryan terrorists do, while everyone else in the world is quite certain it's wrong.
What we can assume is a small set of almost universally agreed-upon standards of human society. I think every culture in the world condemns murder, theft, and a few other things. There is no society that as a whole embraces terrorism ("But what about Islamic terrorists?" "Those are a small minority acting independently of the group as a whole").
I think that rant was a little off-topic. Yes, there is a wide spectrum of views on this, but that is precisely because morals and values are relative.

Here's a little something for you to consider: People typically do not just have values or moral preferences without having reasons that are amenable to rational scrutiny which they use to support their values or moral preferences. Even people who believe that morality is ultimately just a matter of personal preference, have reasons for their own preferences, and these reasons typically will involve some beliefs about matters of fact. So if I can show that such people are wrong about the matters of fact, I can show that their preferences are less than rational. I think it's hardly ever the case that people just have bare preferences with respect to how the world should be or how people should act. Even national socialism supports its own moral conclusions with certain claims about how things actually are in the world. It seems to me that in actual practice we often only need to show somebody is wrong about particular matters of fact to defeat their moral beliefs. But I would agree that moral beliefs at a certain level don't seem quite as amenable to rational scrutiny or discussion.

I question the first bit. If you went up to someone and said "is it okay to kill people without any reason?" they'd say "no" but if you said "why?" they'd probably say something along the lines of "it's just wrong." I don't know what I would say tbh.
I think each person's individual morals are formed subconsciously, highly influenced by their environment. Not many people go back and think up reasons for their morals and values, but no one forms their morals and values through conscious, rational thought.
If you watch Hitchcock's Rope it involves a character who through rational thought has come to the conclusion that it would be okay for a member of the intellectual elite to kill someone not of the elite, but at the end when one of his students actually acts on this he is horrified and realizes that he doesn't really believe it. I offer this not as proof but as an example of what I mean.

 

[Cythraul]

I question the first bit. If you went up to someone and said "is it okay to kill people without any reason?" they'd say "no" but if you said "why?" they'd probably say something along the lines of "it's just wrong." I don't know what I would say tbh.
I think each person's individual morals are formed subconsciously, highly influenced by their environment. Not many people go back and think up reasons for their morals and values, but no one forms their morals and values through conscious, rational thought.
If you watch Hitchcock's Rope it involves a character who through rational thought has come to the conclusion that it would be okay for a member of the intellectual elite to kill someone not of the elite, but at the end when one of his students actually acts on this he is horrified and realizes that he doesn't really believe it. I offer this not as proof but as an example of what I mean.

Those are really good points. If I'm not mistaken there have been some psychological studies which apparently suggest that people do not typically reason antecedently to having moral beliefs, but rather have moral beliefs and try to rationalize them after the fact. We should be careful, however, about what that sort of data implies. I don't always have to be consciously aware of my reasons for belief for those reasons to play a role in the maintaining or formation of my beliefs. If you asked me why I expect the light to turn on in my refrigerator every time I open its door, I will attempt to give you reasons based on inductive evidence, and those reasons might indeed have played a role in my belief, even though I may have never explicitly said to myself 'these are my reasons for expecting the light to turn on in my refrigerator every time I open its door'. I also don't think that the fact that some people would answer the question 'why do you think x is wrong?' by saying 'because x is just wrong' really implies much of interest. That they give such an answer just implies that they may not have ever really posed the question to themselves. That does not mean that they do not have presuppositions or reasons lurking "under the surface". I think there's a lot of questions you could pose to the average person and they wouldn't give a very satisfactory answer. That doesn't imply anything particularly interesting as far as I'm concerned.

Sorry for the disorganized thoughts. I'm in a hurry (about to go have some beers with some philosophy students Maybe I'll bring up these issues with them).

 

[waif]

Cool.
My point about asking someone was that they would have to create - or at least put subconscious thoughts into words - the reasons on the spot. I suppose I said that because I've had the experience where I would say something and someone just said "why do you think that?" and I had to look at it critically (very quickly) and justify (and ultimately redefine) my position.

 

[AchrisK]

You say we should assume a set of absolute moral standards, but the example to which you try to apply it actually contradicts that. We can all agree that human beings almost always believe themselves to be justified in what they do - that their moral code endorses their actions, and when it doesn't they tend to stretch that moral code. Occasionally we commit some action that our moral codes won't stretch to cover, and then we experience guilt, but nobody adopts a controversial ideology like neo-Nazi terrorism if it makes them feel guilty. Thus we can assume that AWEAJ feel that it is morally right for them to blow up Jewish businesses or whatever aryan terrorists do, while everyone else in the world is quite certain it's wrong.
What we can assume is a small set of almost universally agreed-upon standards of human society. I think every culture in the world condemns murder, theft, and a few other things. There is no society that as a whole embraces terrorism ("But what about Islamic terrorists?" "Those are a small minority acting independently of the group as a whole").
I think that rant was a little off-topic. Yes, there is a wide spectrum of views on this, but that is precisely because morals and values are relative.

I don't see how my example contradicts anything. Assuming there are moral absolutes does not = everyone believing or accepting that. I agree with your point that people behave in a morally relativistic way. But I disagree that "nobody adopts a controversial ideology like neo-Nazi terrorism if it makes them feel guilty". I think that average* people who go down paths typically seen as evil or morally wrong have to get through feelings of guilt on their way to becoming things like rapists, serial killers and the like. In fact they likely experienced feelings of guilt all the way from their first look at a naked booby in a magazine. As you allow yourself into territory that brings feelings of guilt, you slowly desensitize your "conscience" over time and end up where you may never have imagined. I would even go so far as to say that feelings of guilt still plague them from time to time. Therefore a moral absolute can exist while being ignored to varying degrees. The wide spectrum of views is based not on the truth of moral relativism, but on the selfish nature of humankind.


*I am distinguishing between "average" people and those raised in non-typical situations such as abuse or being taught racism from birth.

 

[Einherjar86]

Here's a little something for you to consider: People typically do not just have values or moral preferences without having reasons that are amenable to rational scrutiny which they use to support their values or moral preferences. Even people who believe that morality is ultimately just a matter of personal preference, have reasons for their own preferences, and these reasons typically will involve some beliefs about matters of fact. So if I can show that such people are wrong about the matters of fact, I can show that their preferences are less than rational. I think it's hardly ever the case that people just have bare preferences with respect to how the world should be or how people should act. Even national socialism supports its own moral conclusions with certain claims about how things actually are in the world. It seems to me that in actual practice we often only need to show somebody is wrong about particular matters of fact to defeat their moral beliefs. But I would agree that moral beliefs at a certain level don't seem quite as amenable to rational scrutiny or discussion.

edit: sorry if this post isn't very well thought out. I'm kind of tired right now.

Nice, and InFlames' response was good too.

I don't really know how to counter this because eventually you just start arguing things that are really impossible to understand. You're arguing that usually personal moral standards derive from some idea of specific universal facts. These facts aren't debatable, and thus you could argue that some moral standards are more sound than others.

Let's look at an example (if you have a better one, or if I'm missing your point, redirect me):

Someone comes up to me and says "killing people is wrong" (I'll play devil's advocate). I say "no, killing people isn't universally wrong; there is no moral standard that says 'killing is wrong.'" Then I ask, "why do you believe that killing people is wrong?"

Here are the facts I'm given:
"It's just wrong" (as InFlames correctly declared that many people would probably say)
"You are inflicting harm on another (and likely, more)"
"You infringe upon another person's inherent liberties"
"You put yourself at risk of prosecution and punishment"

Now, the first two probably deal more directly with moral responsibility. However, I believe that the response of someone who did not believe in absolute morals would reply with "who cares?" "You're inflicting harm on another person." "Who cares?" Basically, someone who sees no moral responsibility will not see any flaw or mistake in harming another person. It doesn't affect the aggressor, so why does it matter?

The second two deal more with logical reasoning. In the society we live in, it would be unwise for someone to kill another person because it really wouldn't benefit him or her in any way (this is why I claimed that it would be stupid of me to buy the record of a band that wants to bomb my city; not because I think they're wrong, but because it would be illogical to do so). The idea of personal liberty is another logical argument. Someone who wants to maintain their own personal liberties would be acting irrationally in killing another person, because they would be potentially harming their own personal liberties.

Bascially, I believe that acting rationally is not the same as acting morally, but it achieves much the same results. People shouldn't be clouded by these ideas of "morals" (they should recognize and understand them and their impact on society, though). Rather, they should consider what is best for themselves (which, coincidentally, is usually best for the community).