Not at all: logical ethical principles (golden rule, harm principle, freedom of the individual) & basic individual liberties in a free society. Such a society where people are free to express themselves without doing actual harm is a benefit to the world “at large”. The alternative would be bleak.
JustAnotherKay@lemmy.world 4 days ago
Okay, fine. I’ll do big words with you.
Let’s talk about the difference between Ethics and Morals. Ethics are what you individually follow, it’s your Ethos. Morals are what a society follows.
It may be morally correct to say that “people should be allowed to do as they please” while also ethically correct to say “you shouldn’t disrespect people’s wishes.”
You’re right, that it is moral for someone to imitate art. At least, in our culture. But that’s because most people follow the ethos that they can do and take as they please. I personally hold myself to a higher standard than that, and I hope you can do the same some day.
lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com 3 days ago
The "platinum rule"
While the golden rule has flaws, too, (why someone came up with categorical imperative), at least it’s reciprocal.
The platinum rule is to treat others as they would want. One way to treat others is to let them do as they want. People would want that, so according to the platinum rule, we should. Can we oppose them? People wouldn’t want that, so we shouldn’t.
The platinum rule obligates actions followers may disagree with (eg, someone wants treatment others think is wrong). To address that, a follower may want to be treated in ways that don’t create unwanted obligations. If we disagree about the right way to be treated, then we give them unwanted obligations. Thus, we shouldn’t disagree.
In effect, the platinum rule prohibits dissent, which is unjust. This platinum looks more like pyrite.
In particular, the platinum rule obligates the artist to let & not oppose someone who wants to express themselves with derivative art. Expressing oneself with derived art is not even an act done to or treatment of the artist, so arguing for respecting the artist with the platinum rule is questionable.
Anyhow, in a discussion about democratic values (contention of the linked article), no position on whether an artist should be respected matters, because it clarifies nothing in the defense of democratic values. “Respecting wishes” isn’t a democratic value and neither is being a good person. Individual liberties such as freedom of expression are democratic values. Defending that democratic value means allowing whatever regardless of whether we should respect artists. That’s why I wrote it doesn’t matter & such arguments are “futile & senseless”.
It’s also why I don’t state my position on it: it’s a red herring that doesn’t defend democratic values, which I’m arguing to do while the linked article argues an undemocratic message (exercise of free expression is wrong) that purports to be prodemocratic. Even if I agree with (I could!), it’s beside the point.
I think it’s worth pointing out that respect doesn’t mean fulfilling someone’s wishes or treating them however they want. While that would be nice, satisfying nonobligatory expectations is not a duty, and not doing it is neither right nor wrong. Respect means treating someone fairly, justly, which includes accepting their freedom not to appease every expectation. Claiming we should always respect people’s wishes is bizarre and indicates lack of experience or failure to imagine how that obviously goes wrong. We can’t satisfy everyone, nor are we here to. This just seems like basic sense.
JustAnotherKay@lemmy.world 3 days ago
I’m just gonna chalk this up to you not understanding my points literally at all and stop having this conversation. You are insufferable to talk to and outright refuse to see my point at all.