Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

tbryan1 t1_j41wxuu wrote

  1. (A) I would argue that there is no difference between art and any other tangible object. The meaning behind art is derived from reality, so actual objects will always have the compacity to be "art". The no true Scotsman fallacy is at play here. (B) your analogy about how art is pointing at 1 individual and using them for branding while companies aren't is a bad analogy in my opinion. It is more accurate to compare the star a actor with representatives and CEO's which are synonymous with the branding of a company. What I mean is when a movie says "come see billy in the new movie", you change it to "come see billy the rapist", so you ought to make that same leap with companies. Blood diamonds are a popular example.
  2. This is where I part ways because I call BS when people want to be ethical some times well more like less than .00001% of the time. There is a name for it but I don't want to be rude. The argument here isn't equivalent either. An artist abuses someone in the past outside of the move what ever, compared to an artist actively raping someone on set. That's the difference between drama cycles and businesses do to the fact that business models have exploitation baked in.


(conclusion) I consider old presidential speeches to be art do to the historical element that has been introduced "ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country" as an example of something that's so unimaginable in todays world. I say this because there are some really bad people that gave speeches


corran132 t1_j42ue1b wrote

I'm sorry, I don't really follow your conclusion.

If the word you are thinking of for me is 'hypocrite', then that's fair. I recognize that this is not entirely intellectually consistent. The problem is that, in my eyes, being entirely intellectually consistent leads to one of two outcomes.

  1. Nothing matters, consume what you want. All businesses do shitty things, so don't worry about it.
  2. Completely disengage with society. All businesses, all governments, everyone does shitty things, so withdraw from all of it.

The problem is, I don't think either of these are actually helpful outcomes.

In the latter case, unless you found some commune and call forth followers to the woods (in which case, your own actions enter into the equations) you are never going to change anything.

In the former, nothing gets better because you cast aside that 'better' means anything at all. Everyone sucks, so who cares who sucks more than others?

What I am trying to outline is what I call 'doing my best'. I can choose, if/when I want to buy something for my partner, not to buy blood diamonds. I can choose not to consume (and support) media by people who are POS's. I can try to educate myself on how to support elected candidates that will push for better working conditions. Does my consumption sill cause harm? Absolutely, but I can try to make that as small as possible.

Because it is easier to find information on which art is made by problematic actors (but due to celebrity gossip and the high profile nature of the individuals), and because people have such an emotional attachment to art, it is the avenue of consumption that is most affected by people trying to be ethical consumers. Maybe it shouldn't be any different, but it is.


tbryan1 t1_j457fwq wrote

The word wasn't "hypocrite" it was "virtue signaling" which isn't inherently bad, however it denotes a completely different type of framework for your ethics. I'm not arguing for the negative or that you are a bad person or anything, just that there is deception in your framing. You are framing it from an "ought" position that is grounded in ethical principles, but they are never adhered to like ever. You are trying to claim all the virtue of holding this ethical position that you never use which is dishonest.

I can't know your mind but from the outside looking in you are utilizing a type of moral egoism which explains why you are able to ignore this dilemma 99.9999% of the time. Though there are many forms of egoism they are all willing to tolerate immoral/harmful behaviors so long as you incur a commensurate benefit. This puts people in a compromised position so they seek out instances where they can be ethical or virtuous to gain a type of moral currency to protect against the scales not balancing in their favor. This last thing is where the deception is introduced because we want to present a grounded ethical position that's virtuous not some egocentric motivation. The principled you make your position look the worse it makes everyone else look if they don't follow it so you are gaining moral currency while causing other people to lose theirs. This is on reason we even in an egocentric model you still seek external moral protection.