It doesn't seem to me that there is much art at all that is generated for these reasons. Art is political, or a work of love, or....
Cancel Cutlure
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8268
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: Cancel Cutlure
"Who cares, wins"
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8268
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: Cancel Cutlure
I'm sorry, but it don't look that way:
Yes, and I could buy a gun to protect myself from physical bullying (if I lived in the US), but why should I have to? I can school myself to endure the insults of others, at the cost of my own self-respect, self-confidence and self-image, but (again) why should I? Why should I have to survive lifelong attacks when the fault is not mine, but that of the thugs you protect by telling me I should defend myself better? The victim is not at fault here, it's the bullies. Instead of telling victims to defend themselves, how about calling on the thugs to stop their attacks?!!
"Who cares, wins"
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Cancel Cutlure
But you know that plumbers and electricians have to deal with problems all the time re coworkers, bosses, subcontractors, customers, logistical problems on job sites, etc. etc,, right? So why wouldn't that be unethical, too?baker wrote: ↑January 9th, 2021, 6:17 amRarely in whole. For example, being a plummer or an electrician is morally quite straightforward for the most part, but it stops being so when it comes to luxurious installations that serve no practical purpose other than to indulge in luxury.
But there are vocations and hobbies that are to begin with born out of greed, laziness, boredom, violence, ignorance, bad luck, desire for intoxication. Such as making alcoholic beverages, cigarettes, much art.
Anyway, I'm not here to judge various vocations and hobbies. My point is just that some vocations and hobbies are born out of motivations that are ethically problematic, so it's no wonder that those fields are fraught with ethical problems.
Re talking about "born out of motivations," what sort of survey data do you have for the motivations for anything?
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14995
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: Cancel Cutlure
I was keen on Buddhism for some years as a young 'un and never heard of the religion being so puritanical, otherwise I would have dropped all interest in it immediately. Rather, I found Buddhism to be the opposite to what you described, where Zen Buddhists would spend a lifetime creating a single work of art.baker wrote: ↑January 9th, 2021, 6:22 amAre you familiar with the Buddhist take on what makes for right livelihood?Greta wrote: ↑January 8th, 2021, 9:04 pm Totalitarian regimes have traditionally scorned artists as unethical, unless they work in service of the state, eg. the military. Extremist religions too, like the Taliban, reject the arts. Mao rejected the arts unless in service of the state. Earlier it was Oliver Cromwell's Puritans.
Some of us here would have paid with our lives for our immoral enjoyment of creative activities in such environments. I hope we can keep the StrongMen (ie. quasi-mafiosos) at bay. Otherwise we will find out what it is like to be literally cancelled.
AFAIK, it's the only religion with what would be termed an extremely conservative ethic, yet it is not justified with a moral imperative, unlike the example you list above.
It's an instructive example of how there can be an extremely conservative ethic without a categorical moral imperative.
Artists provide something that others want with specialist skills. This is morally no different to plumbing, selling or policing. The idea that the arts are inherently unethical is IMO ungrounded and psychologically unhealthy.
-
- Posts: 608
- Joined: November 28th, 2020, 6:55 am
Re: Cancel Cutlure
Sure. To give an extreme: Would you say there's honor among thieves? Why yes, or why not?Terrapin Station wrote: ↑January 9th, 2021, 9:22 amBut you know that plumbers and electricians have to deal with problems all the time re coworkers, bosses, subcontractors, customers, logistical problems on job sites, etc. etc,, right? So why wouldn't that be unethical, too?
I doubt such studies exist. But it's often self-evident what the motivations are, for say, watching tv sitcoms, and what the makers of sitcoms are exploiting.Re talking about "born out of motivations," what sort of survey data do you have for the motivations for anything?
-
- Posts: 608
- Joined: November 28th, 2020, 6:55 am
Re: Cancel Cutlure
-- Which is of religious nature and which they don't sell.Greta wrote: ↑January 9th, 2021, 3:02 pmI was keen on Buddhism for some years as a young 'un and never heard of the religion being so puritanical, otherwise I would have dropped all interest in it immediately. Rather, I found Buddhism to be the opposite to what you described,
where Zen Buddhists would spend a lifetime creating a single work of art.
And it looks like your involvement with Buddhism was rather narrow. Also, you didn't take my point about early Buddhism not having a categorical moral imperative. It's because it doesn't have one that it cannot be considered puritanical.
Really, you believe that something that is meant to fill your boredom or trump up your anxiety and insecurity is as morally neutral as making sure that the plumbing in your home works?Artists provide something that others want with specialist skills. This is morally no different to plumbing, selling or policing. The idea that the arts are inherently unethical is IMO ungrounded and psychologically unhealthy.
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14995
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: Cancel Cutlure
Absolutely yes. A service is a service. If a person wants it, who am I to judge? Or you?baker wrote: ↑January 9th, 2021, 4:26 pmReally, you believe that something that is meant to fill your boredom or trump up your anxiety and insecurity is as morally neutral as making sure that the plumbing in your home works?Artists provide something that others want with specialist skills. This is morally no different to plumbing, selling or policing. The idea that the arts are inherently unethical is IMO ungrounded and psychologically unhealthy.
By your logic, selling food is unethical. Let's recontextualise: "Really, you believe that something that is meant to fill you with sugar, transfats, nitrites and salt is as morally neutral as making sure that the plumbing in your home works?".
Do you see the jaundiced bias in each statement?
Should we ignore the healthful aspects of the arts, and of food? What of the times when arts inspire, helps with working rhythms, heals sadness, brings joy and delight and can even help people suffering from dementia to connect and facilitate peak experiences?
-
- Posts: 608
- Joined: November 28th, 2020, 6:55 am
Re: Cancel Cutlure
Read that again.
You think selling (and buying) drugs is not morally questionable?By your logic, selling food is unethical. Let's recontextualise: "Really, you believe that something that is meant to fill you with sugar, transfats, nitrites and salt is as morally neutral as making sure that the plumbing in your home works?".
Do you see the jaundiced bias in each statement?
This is too general. We'd need to go into much more detail ...Should we ignore the healthful aspects of the arts, and of food? What of the times when arts inspire, helps with working rhythms, heals sadness, brings joy and delight and can even help people suffering from dementia to connect and facilitate peak experiences?
-
- Posts: 608
- Joined: November 28th, 2020, 6:55 am
Re: Cancel Cutlure
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14995
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: Cancel Cutlure
No need. I answered, and it's up to you to accept it because it's only logical that helping people's moods and helping people's plumbing are each a service.
Your problem with the arts makes no sense. To claim that working in the arts is inherently unethical is an outrageous claim that requires significant backup up by you, not requests for others to support what is patently obvious and logical.
I suggest that you ask chemists, supermarkets, corner stores, et al that question. It's not a field I work in.baker wrote: ↑January 9th, 2021, 5:10 pmYou think selling (and buying) drugs is not morally questionable?By your logic, selling food is unethical. Let's recontextualise: "Really, you believe that something that is meant to fill you with sugar, transfats, nitrites and salt is as morally neutral as making sure that the plumbing in your home works?".
Do you see the jaundiced bias in each statement?
Again, the positive effects of the arts on people are extremely well documented. Where is the equivalent documented evidence that the arts are inherently unethical?baker wrote: ↑January 9th, 2021, 5:10 pmThis is too general. We'd need to go into much more detail ...Should we ignore the healthful aspects of the arts, and of food? What of the times when arts inspire, helps with working rhythms, heals sadness, brings joy and delight and can even help people suffering from dementia to connect and facilitate peak experiences?
- LuckyR
- Moderator
- Posts: 7935
- Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am
Re: Cancel Cutlure
You are trying to create a false choice. Encouraging victims to do something under their control (take evasive action), doesn't equate to abandoning the hope that perpetrators change their ways (which isn't under their control).Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑January 9th, 2021, 9:18 amI'm sorry, but it don't look that way:
Yes, and I could buy a gun to protect myself from physical bullying (if I lived in the US), but why should I have to? I can school myself to endure the insults of others, at the cost of my own self-respect, self-confidence and self-image, but (again) why should I? Why should I have to survive lifelong attacks when the fault is not mine, but that of the thugs you protect by telling me I should defend myself better? The victim is not at fault here, it's the bullies. Instead of telling victims to defend themselves, how about calling on the thugs to stop their attacks?!!
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8268
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: Cancel Cutlure
Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑January 9th, 2021, 9:18 am
I'm sorry, but it don't look that way:
Yes, and I could buy a gun to protect myself from physical bullying (if I lived in the US), but why should I have to? I can school myself to endure the insults of others, at the cost of my own self-respect, self-confidence and self-image, but (again) why should I? Why should I have to survive lifelong attacks when the fault is not mine, but that of the thugs you protect by telling me I should defend myself better? The victim is not at fault here, it's the bullies. Instead of telling victims to defend themselves, how about calling on the thugs to stop their attacks?!!
Still your view is aimed at the victim, and only the victim. For the victim, there is only a "hope that perpetrators change their ways", as you say, but for the rest of us, and for the bullies, this is not so. We could change this injustice, or at least we could try. We could stop blaming the victims, requiring them to take "evasive action", or ignore the bullying altogether, and address the behaviour, and the bullies themselves. Will you not even consider this alternative viewpoint?
"Who cares, wins"
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: Cancel Cutlure
Yeah, but apart from that everything about it is appealing. Or, at least, everything that traffic will allow. Nowhere could you get that happy feeling when you're stealing that extra bow.baker wrote:Showbusiness is, at its core, unethical. It preys and relies on people's basest instincts, their insecurity, their boredom, their lack of creativity, their willingness to spend money, time, and energy on things they don't really need.
No wonder that those in the business of showbusiness occasionally run into some troubles. They are playing with fire, after all.
- LuckyR
- Moderator
- Posts: 7935
- Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am
Re: Cancel Cutlure
Of course bullies should be addressed (as you point out, best by society than by the victim). But I have more empathy for (and thus interest in assisting) the victim, than punishing the bully, so my commentary is slanted that way. That's what I meant by a false choice, it is not either/or, it is both (that is: addressing bullies directly is not an alternative, it part of a holistic plan, that I happened not to comment on).Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑January 20th, 2021, 2:21 pmPattern-chaser wrote: ↑January 9th, 2021, 9:18 am
I'm sorry, but it don't look that way:
Yes, and I could buy a gun to protect myself from physical bullying (if I lived in the US), but why should I have to? I can school myself to endure the insults of others, at the cost of my own self-respect, self-confidence and self-image, but (again) why should I? Why should I have to survive lifelong attacks when the fault is not mine, but that of the thugs you protect by telling me I should defend myself better? The victim is not at fault here, it's the bullies. Instead of telling victims to defend themselves, how about calling on the thugs to stop their attacks?!!
Still your view is aimed at the victim, and only the victim. For the victim, there is only a "hope that perpetrators change their ways", as you say, but for the rest of us, and for the bullies, this is not so. We could change this injustice, or at least we could try. We could stop blaming the victims, requiring them to take "evasive action", or ignore the bullying altogether, and address the behaviour, and the bullies themselves. Will you not even consider this alternative viewpoint?
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8268
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: Cancel Cutlure
LuckyR wrote: ↑January 21st, 2021, 12:21 pmPattern-chaser wrote: ↑January 20th, 2021, 2:21 pm Still your view is aimed at the victim, and only the victim. For the victim, there is only a "hope that perpetrators change their ways", as you say, but for the rest of us, and for the bullies, this is not so. We could change this injustice, or at least we could try. We could stop blaming the victims, requiring them to take "evasive action", or ignore the bullying altogether, and address the behaviour, and the bullies themselves. Will you not even consider this alternative viewpoint?
Of course bullies should be addressed (as you point out, best by society than by the victim). But I have more empathy for (and thus interest in assisting) the victim, than punishing the bully, so my commentary is slanted that way. That's what I meant by a false choice, it is not either/or, it is both (that is: addressing bullies directly is not an alternative, it part of a holistic plan, that I happened not to comment on).
I wasn't aiming at punishment, but only prevention. If that can be achieved without "punishment", so much the better. But it is not appropriate (IMO, of course) simply to ignore the obvious solution: stop the bullies, and stop expecting the victims to endure or ignore the punishment meted out by their tormentors. We don't expect the victims of abusers, murderers or rapists (for example) to tolerate these criminal attacks. Bullying is less serious than these examples, but it is still an unwarranted and undeserved attack, and there is no reason that I can see to burden the victim with blame (or whatever).
"Who cares, wins"
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023