Can you separate an author from his or her work?

[Janx]

So if enough intermediary agents exist between the consumer and the artist, then it's okay? The consumer is no longer complicit?

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...hor-from-his-or-her-work/page11#ixzz39ihNwSrL

this part from Mallus got me thinking. use of the word "complicit" has got me thinking that this train of logic convicts me for somebody else's actions.

Am I complicit in supporting OSC's current politics because I read Ender's Game in the 90's?
Am I complicit because I wanted the movie last month on On Demand?

Am I guilty of a crime because I watched a Roman Polanski movie?

Am I guilty of a crime because I live in the US and am most likely on land formerly owned by natives?

While I would not recommend going to a new land and screwing the natives over to take their land, I am a beneficiary of that very tactic long before my time. If what they did was wrong, they should have been punished for it.

While I abhor what Roman did, isn't it the legal system's job to punish him, not mine?

I hate walmart, but the least skanky one in Houston is 2 miles from my house, and when everything else is closed, I can get an HDMI cable there. Am I "complicit" because I buy from them now and then, despite the fact that I usually avoid shopping there?

I don't think that's right to put on the average consumer in almost any shape or fashion. But there's probably reasonable exceptions.

 

[Mallus]

What's more ethically important - not giving Card some tiny amount of support, or having folks in your home community lose their jobs?

I think w/r/t the film version of Ender's Game its important to recognize Card is only one part of the whole enterprise; you're also supporting a large number of artists and craftspeople who do not share his views, and likely hold views and support causes diametrically opposed to Card's.

This is true long before you get into the film's distribution channels.

 

[tomBitonti]

this part from Mallus got me thinking. use of the word "complicit" has got me thinking that this train of logic convicts me for somebody else's actions.

Am I complicit in supporting OSC's current politics because I read Ender's Game in the 90's?
Am I complicit because I wanted the movie last month on On Demand?

Am I guilty of a crime because I watched a Roman Polanski movie?

Am I guilty of a crime because I live in the US and am most likely on land formerly owned by natives?

While I would not recommend going to a new land and screwing the natives over to take their land, I am a beneficiary of that very tactic long before my time. If what they did was wrong, they should have been punished for it.

While I abhor what Roman did, isn't it the legal system's job to punish him, not mine?

I hate walmart, but the least skanky one in Houston is 2 miles from my house, and when everything else is closed, I can get an HDMI cable there. Am I "complicit" because I buy from them now and then, despite the fact that I usually avoid shopping there?

I don't think that's right to put on the average consumer in almost any shape or fashion. But there's probably reasonable exceptions.

And this is where it all gets ... tricky. I have no good answers to these questions, and have thought about some of the very same questions. Arguably, genocide was committed against American Indians centuries ago. Am I morally obligated to remedy this? If people are enslaved by economic policies, am I obliged to act outside of the economy? There is no way that I can see to do this, except to become a hermit (ala the Unibomber), not, it seems, a feasible action.

A rule of thumb a friend once gave me was "Think Globally, Act Locally". We are too enmeshed, too interdependent, to restructure the world alone and quickly. Change proceeds across decades and centuries. But, we are able to effect local changes, and add our voice and actions to make small differences that can and do add up.

I've read a lot of Orson Scott Card (whose work I increasingly find less appealing than I once did); the same for Harlan Ellison, whom I once had a high opinion of, but have found to have less as I learn more, both generally, and about Ellison.

I find curious (as observed for myself) that as I learn more about authors and artists, I also find their work less appealing, not quite because of what I have learned about the artist, but because of everything else I learned over time. That is to say, there may be less of an issue here than there seems to be, as a result of one realizing the limited quality of a material, which one did not previously realize. Then, I haven't had to learn much about Card to change my opinion of his work; my opinion changed on its own for other reasons.

Thx!

TomB

 

[Umbran]

I think w/r/t the film version of Ender's Game its important to recognize Card is only one part of the whole enterprise; you're also supporting a large number of artists and craftspeople who do not share his views, and likely hold views and support causes diametrically opposed to Card's.

Agreed, as I stated up thread. I saw that film with that in mind.

But the specific examples are only meant to be demonstrative, so that dismissing one doesn't change the point - actions have consequences. Just because you intend to address an injustice doesn't mean that your action has that net effect.

Take Roman Polanski as another example - his victim is on record as saying that at this point, the media has done more damage to her and her family than Polanski did himself. Folks who may really have only been seeking justice may well have made her life notably worse. The road to Heck is paved with good intentions, so to speak. Simple, naive analysis may not lead us to ethical action.

I think that the word "complicit" up there is an example, honestly. Tom clearly is a person of conscience, and wants to help, right? But, whether or not he thinks the word is technically true, it is problematic - it will tend to make folks you are talking with feel you are trying to push guilt upon them. Most of the time, this is not apt to get them to agree with you, but will get them to push back on your ideas - much as Janx reacted. "Guilt tripping" is an unreliable tool, at best. So, meaning well or not, maybe he's working against his own good purposes.

We aren't in a court of law, and our ethical mission as individuals probably isn't to identify and punish the guilty. So, who is complicit should be a distant secondary concern. Instead, simply identifying what is wrong, and acting as best we can to mitigate or reverse those wrongs should be our primary goal, no? So, let us not worry about who is complicit, and instead concern ourselves with what constitutes right action once an ill has been identified.

 

[billd91]

A rule of thumb a friend once gave me was "Think Globally, Act Locally". We are too enmeshed, too interdependent, to restructure the world alone and quickly. Change proceeds across decades and centuries. But, we are able to effect local changes, and add our voice and actions to make small differences that can and do add up.

I think another good suggestion is "Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good". Attaining perfection in word and action isn't going to be possible. Acting perfectly ethical is an unattainable goal. You can still work to make things better when the knowledge is in place and the opportunity is available. Don't beat yourself up if you can't always take those opportunities or if conflicting ethical requirements means you must compromise on one of them.

To provide an example, my mother in law got on my wife's case about buying something at Walmart because of Walmart's labor practices. And normally, for our own shopping we avoid Walmart. But my wife was at Walmart because of her job - she works for an agency that provides service for adults with developmental disabilities. That day, she was taking her client shopping and, because of where this client lives and her very limited income, Walmart is the best shopping solution available to her. There's the conflicting ethics - Walmart is exploitive but she also had to be responsible with her client's finances and ability to get around. She had to compromise one set of ethics for another given the situation and, despite my loathing of Walmart, she made the right choice.

People make similar choices all the time, with good information, with incomplete information, with significant consequences, insignificant consequences, direct consequences, and indirect and, often, for very personal reasons so I don't usually get on anybody else's case about their own choices. I'm not them and don't get to make their choices for them and I expect similar courtesy in return.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

We aren't in a court of law, and our ethical mission as individuals probably isn't to identify and punish the guilty. So, who is complicit should be a distant secondary concern. Instead, simply identifying what is wrong, and acting as best we can to mitigate or reverse those wrongs should be our primary goal, no? So, let us not worry about who is complicit, and instead concern ourselves with what constitutes right action once an ill has been identified.

And in fact, the law in most modern jurisdictions only asserts a duty to help if you hold a certain position- fireman, policeman, lifeguard- or in limited circumstances- you caused the problem in question. In all other cases, we can legally be mere observers.

Ethics and morality are different. They often ask more if us than is legally necessary.

For instance, you know the term "show-rooming"? The practice of doing price comparisons in brick & mortar stores and buying the product online, regardless of where you actually shopped? It hurts a lot of retailers, but it isn't illegal. However, certain moral/ethical systems don't see it that way. I read an essay written by some orthodox Jewish theologians who stated in no uncertain terms that- in their interpretation- this was morally equivalent to theft. By show-rooming without intent to buy, the shopper has taken the facilities, time and efforts of the shopkeeper & his staff could have used to make a sale to a "real" potential customer.

Besides, even S.O.Bs gotta eat- if Hitler was a racist waiter who, nonetheless wound up as your server, would you insist on another server or being seared in a different section?

So, it just comes down to a question of conscience- how far do you want to go to punish those you perceive as being wrongdoers?

And let's be clear, the "wrongdoers" are performing the same moral/ethical calculus. It's just that they place different values on the variables. I know of otherwise very moral people, people I respect, who have what I consider moral failings. My music minister- a Christian rock artist of no small status- boycotts the work of any musician he knows to be gay, for instance. (Found that out when I mentioned an Elton John song...)

It's a disappointment to to me that he feels thus, but it doesn't stop me from buying his CDs. This isn't just because I can- as stated previously- separate artist from works, but also because his work is startlingly good at conveying messages of healing and spirituality...and if I did boycott him, I would be acting as he did, albeit with a goal I deem morally superior. Kinda hubristic. Also runs afoul of ends/means justifications, and the admonitions Christians are supposed to heed about judging, loving all, and forgiving sins as we forgive the sins of others...

 

[Mercurius]

I can't say that I've read the entire thread, but did scan through the first few pages and found the conversation interesting - but forgive me if I reinvent the wheel here.

What I find most worrisome about these sorts of discussions is that there is usually an implied "faux absolute" moral standard, as if the universe has an intrinsic moral code that somehow co-incides with 20th-21st century liberal arts postmodernism. Don't get me wrong, I agree with much of that cultural milieu, and certainly find it more progressive than religious fundamentalism, but find that it is often an instant of its own complaint and unable to be self-critical or recognize its own limitations. For instance, it separates itself from its own relativism, as if it is speaking from an absolute standard (cf. "performative contradiction").

I tend to take the view that we are continually evolving, our social and cultural ideas are changing--hopefully towards greater freedom, inclusivity, and compassion (although not always). But the key is, our worldview now--whether individual or collective--is never complete, never the Absolute Truth, yet we tend to see the world--and judge others--as if it was, as if we were "complete."

Anyhow, I am a huge Woody Allen fan, especially his 70s classics like Annie Hall (one of my five or ten all-time favorite movies), Manhattan, and Stardust Memories, all of which--along with a few others--I will re-watch every few years. Do I find the allegations against him disturbing? Certainly. Can I prove they are true? No, although even if they were proven I would still watch his films. Why? Because human beings are inherently flawed and no one is free from "sin."

I know there's a difference between stealing a candy bar or two when you're a kid and molesting your step child or, in MZB's case, sexually abusing your own children. But where do we draw the line? We can all agree that sexual abuse is bad but not everyone agrees that animal abuse is reprehensible. Some people honestly don't care, unless of course it is their own pet.

The other thing to keep in mind is that most perpetrators of sexual abuse were also victims. This doesn't excuse it, of course, but it does contextualize it as the inherited tragedy that it is. Suffering begets suffering - that is what the Hindu-Buddhist traditions call "karma."

A few years ago I saw an excellent, if controversial film in which Kevin Bacon played a recovering child molestor. The Woodsman it is called. Anyhow, what I found to be so evocative about the film is that Bacon's character wasn't depicted as an inherently evil human being, but as someone with good intentions but a mental illness. He didn't want to be sexually attracted to children but he couldn't help himself. It has been about 8-9 years since I saw it, but I think it effectively portrayed the difference between uncontrollable urges on one hand, and actions on the other. Bacon's character couldn't control his urges, but he could choose--through great difficulty--what his actions were.

Anyhow, I agree with Umbran's bit about "the baby and the bathwater." To that I would add, "so your poop don't stink?" Human beings are complex, flawed, terrible and marvelous all at the same time. We are all capable of terrible and wonderful things. Speaking for myself, I have done things that I wish I hadn't--from many relatively minor things to more than a few moderate ones (although thankfully nothing truly terrible)--and I think every single human being is the same. When someone steps beyond a certain line, it is easy to be judgmental, but more difficult to turn the mirror upon ourselves, and even more difficult to see that in almost every "bad person" there is a glint of humanity of goodness - even if it is deeply buried behind pathology. Just as in every "good person" there is the potential for truly atrocious acts.

I will continue to watch and enjoy Woody Allen films because he is not only the man who (allegedly) molested his step child(ren). He is also the creator of some amazing art, and I support him for that even if I feel compassion for what could be a mental illness on his part.

 

[Janx]

how far do you want to go to punish those you perceive as being wrongdoers?[/B]

I think there's a secondary complexity to this consideration.

What if you are wrong about the guilt of the person you've chosen to "punish"


It's one thing to avoid social contact with Woody Allen because you think he's guilty.

It's a step further to avoid any of his products.

A step even further to actively speak out against him (talk shows, picketing, writing mean articles)

And even further to go hunt him down and chop his thingy off.

I'm pretty sure some of those things you can't apologize for or just sweep under the rug and move on.

I suspect we are obligated to tip Mr. Hitler if he did a good job as our waiter. Because if our interaction with Mr. Hitler is on a professional level (that is an exchange of goods/services outside of the disputed issue), then what he does/thinks outside of work is his business. I'm pretty sure of this by how obviously wrong it is to NOT tip him, in the instances where people didn't tip their waiter because he was gay. A clash of beliefs is no reason not to recognize good work.

Now if he's at a social gathering, espousing his hateful views, he might have a punch in the eye coming...

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I think there's a secondary complexity to this consideration.

What if you are wrong about the guilt of the person you've chosen to "punish"

That's a more direct way of stating one of the things I was implying when I wrote:

...I would be acting as he did, albeit with a goal I deem morally superior. Kinda hubristic. Also runs afoul of ends/means justifications, and the admonitions Christians are supposed to heed about judging, loving all, and forgiving sins as we forgive the sins of others...

Look at the case of Richard Jewell, crucified in the court of public opinion...and ultimately exonerated.

 

[Umbran]

Ethics and morality are different. They often ask more if us than is legally necessary.

Admittedly, I was being loose in my definition. You probably don't have the luxury of ignoring the difference. I am guessing you're talking about the ethics as a definition of whether an action is correct or incorrect, and morality as a question of whether the action is right or wrong.

A lawyer or doctor, for example, is strongly tied to an ethical code he or she cannot/should not violate, even when it might seem good to do so (say, in the case of mandatory reporting of certain events or interactions - in some cases you are not allowed to keep your mouth shut, even if speaking would be bad for someone who doesn't really deserve it).

So, it just comes down to a question of conscience- how far do you want to go to punish those you perceive as being wrongdoers?

Except it doesn't have to be about punishment. It can be about simply stopping further moral or ethical violations. If you don't buy goods made in sweatshops, and instead buy goods made in the same area at decent wages, you make paying a good wage more attractive. It may be that nobody is actually punished in this process - a company just realizes that paying their workers better gets people to buy, so they do so...

Again, the Market Basket example is a good one here. The person who was ousted had instituted good pay and profit sharing for workers. The remaining execs are expected to sell the chain to a more conventional owner, who would end those policies. Workers and customers want those policies to remain - the fact that the result is "punishment" is (hopefully) secondary to the real goal of incentivising the desired behavior.