Editor’s Note: Several individuals have commented, rightly, on the dubiousness of the claim that Jackson is most likely a child molester. There is evidence on both sides of this question, and it is open whether Jackson is guilty of such acts. Everyday-ethics.org officially intends this example to be a vehicle for philosophical discussion, rather than to imply or suggest any factual truths regarding Mr. Jackson’s guilt or innocence. We also wish to discourage further comments regarding the factual legitimacy of this claim, since the philosophical questions elucidated by the claim are independent of whether the claim is true. It should henceforth be treated as a hypothetical example.
The media frenzy surrounding Michael Jackson’s death has led to an outpouring of goodwill and positive reflections regarding both his musical career and his status as a social icon. What has been strangely absent has been a condemnation of Jackson’s strange obsession with young boys, including numerous allegations of sexual inappropriateness. Reflecting on this curiosity leads to a significant question about how to show proper respect for the passing of a man like this. The question is simple. Does showing respect for a dead artist, as an artist, mean ignoring their moral transgressions?
What does it mean to show respect for the dead? In this case, it seems to mean that we reflect upon some of the incredible musical achievements of Michael Jackson’s career. It also seems to mean taking stock of the social relevance of such an iconic figure. But part of what made Michael Jackson what he was includes this very dark chapter. Why is discussing this taboo?
The Kantian concept of respect for persons says that we show respect for persons by treating them as an end in themselves, not merely as a means. This isn’t terribly helpful in the case of things like media tributes to Jackson, because the media’s job is to sell advertising. So they use Jackson as a means to an end whatever they do. It might be said that no media tribute could be properly respectful, because the very nature of our media makes this impossible.
What about our personal reflections on the life and death of Michael Jackson? Does one judge wrongly if one reminisces positively about Jackson, in spite of the fact that he is most likely guilty of sexual predation upon young boys? Possibly. Let’s grant for the sake of discussion that Jackson was an enormous musical talent, and that his body of work represents great art. Is there anything wrong, or possibly contradictory, with remembering him as an artist, even while condemning him as a man?
Pondering this question has now led us to a significant debate in aesthetics. Do moral considerations, whether they concern the artist or the artistic object itself, have any relevance to whether a thing qualifies as a work of art? Can something be beautiful even if it is immoral?
The moralist takes the view that immoral art, or art created by an immoral person, should be regarded as less worthy of artistic appreciation, in virtue of these moral considerations. For example, if a painting depicts the violent rape of a young woman, the immorality of the subject matter means that the painting is less worthy of being judged as “beautiful,” even if it is otherwise a masterpiece.
One who denies moralism takes the opposite view. Moral considerations are irrelevant to what makes such a painting worthy of being called “beautiful.” Whether it is the painting’s form, the social commentary that it makes, or some other considerations, the moral repugnance of such a painting has nothing to do with the painting’s beauty.
It’s not obvious which of these positions is the right one, and even less clear whether the Michael Jackson example is illuminating or further complicates the matter. On the one hand, if Jackson’s music is great art because of its musicality and widespread appeal, who made it shouldn’t make any difference to our judgment that Jackson’s music is great art, nor to our positive memories of him as a musician.
On the other hand, there is something troubling about simply ignoring the fact that this great music is the work of a person who most likely sexually violated numerous young boys for his own disturbed enjoyment. Does this change anything about the music itself? No. But does it change the context of our evaluation and the appropriateness of a negative judgment of Jackson as an artist? Possibly.
We have nothing more than intuitions to guide us thus far, and we may ultimately do no better than this. But we can be certain about two things. Michael Jackson’s death marked the loss of someone who created something that was beloved by millions for several decades. But it also marked the death of a disturbed human guilty of horrific moral atrocities. Perhaps we disrespect Michael Jackson the artist when we bring this up so soon after his death. But we disrespect his victims by acting as though his actions are irrelevant to how he is remembered. Personally, I prefer to show respect for the living, even at the expense of disrespect for the dead.
About the Author
Elijah Weber is a graduate student at Bowling Green State University. He holds a Master's degree in philosophy from Colorado State University, and Bachelor’s degrees in sociology and philosophy from Chapman Univerity. He currently lives in Bowling Green, Ohio with his wife Laura, his newborn son Brandon, and his feline life-partner Monte.
8 responses so far ↓
1 connie da silva // Jul 7, 2009 at 4:49 am
Sir:
you are at the seat and the bastion of democracy: where liberty and freedom is at the highest epitome of exemplification.
ergo, “innocent until proven guilty”
amidst the very academic, philosophical
even “rational” deliberation you brought
forth herewith, michael jackson - real or
unreal, true or untrue was, is and will be CATEGORICALLY found not guilty by your courts.
ergo, sine qua non.
michael jackson is perfect, indisputable,
eternal, classic art - PERIOD.
the respecting the living even at the expense
of the dead is open to the possibility that
“that” living could be equally, “possibly”
guilty.
there is likewise the: “perception is stronger
than the truth”
your truth by perception is “respecting the living in expense of the dead”
most of “our” truth by perception (i.e., those who respects michael jackson living or dead) is that his art beyond classification of moral or immoral….it is simply art….great art.
thank you for reading.
2 Elijah Weber // Jul 7, 2009 at 4:02 pm
From what I can tell, you are making two points. Let me try and clarify them, to make sure I’m understanding what you’re saying.
1. Jackson was never found guilty in a court of law, so should be treated as innocent. Further, his victims may also be guilty in some way.
2. Among those who respect Michael Jackson as an artist, his work is perceived as great art. My preference for respecting the living by refusing to ignore Jackson’s personal actions in evaluating his music, assuming sexual abuse occured at Jackson’s hand, is also a perception. Neither are “true” in some grander sense, or if one is, this isn’t really what’s at issue. Any disagreement we might have is based on differences of perspective. We are both “right” from our own standpoint.
As for the first one, it’s true that Jackson wasn’t found guilty in a court of law. That makes him innocent from the standpoint of the legal system, though not necessarily in actuality. Slavery was once ratified as acceptable by the Supreme Court, but that didn’t make it okay. There’s a difference between being legally innocent until proven guilty and being literally innocent. The latter doesn’t necessarily follow from the former.
But that’s not really the topic of this article. The question is, if Jackson is guilty, does this change how we ought to judge his work as an artist? Your view seems to be that the truth will be simply a matter of perception in this case. Perhaps, (though this is a debatable view of truth that would need to be defended further) but what if it isn’t? What if works of art have some property of beauty, independently of our perceptions or judgments?
What if Jackson’s work really is objectively worse because of negative moral considerations? What if “Billie Jean” turned out to be a love song for a ten-year old boy? Would that change anything? If it would make you think less of Jackson’s work, you’ve got a problem for the view you’re advocating. That may be something you’re okay with, but it’s important to be aware of what the view you are defending implies. Either way, great comments, and thanks for reading.
3 Saida // Sep 9, 2009 at 2:00 pm
I’d be very interested why you believe that he was “most likely guilty of sexual predation upon young boys”? Are you aware that these accusers had a history of false allegations and fraud, that they repeatedly contradicted themselves and others in their testimonies, and that they have tried to trick other celebritities for money before?
Do you also believe that he was most likely guilty of kidnapping and planning on abducting that family to Brazil in a hot air balloon? Because that’s what they accused him of, too.
The entire premise of your article is faulty. There were no ‘numerous allegations of sexual inappropriateness’. There were two. The first case in 1993 is a difficult issue mostly because there are hardly any documents available. After that, the prosecution searched for ten years, they even went abroad and put up a promotional website looking for victims of Michael Jackson, to no avail. They couldn’t find any victims. That’s why they resorted to the Arvizos of all people, despite the terrible credibility issues of that family. This second case is very well documented. And if you’d actually do some research on that case, and study the court files documenting the (non existent) evidence and the testimonies, rather than rely what the not so reputable press reported at that time, you’d find that the probability that he was in fact guilty is very small.
4 Elijah Weber // Sep 9, 2009 at 2:26 pm
Two things:
1. There are a lot of people and a lot of evidence that Michael Jackson was in fact a sexual predator who targeted young boys. There is also a lot of evidence and a lot of testimony, including yours, which disputes this. What you think about this largely depends on who you regard as reliable.
2. Jackson’s guilt is irrelevant for purposes of my argument, which is not about Michael Jackson. Jackson is just an example. My concerns whether the moral or immoral actions of artists effects how we evaluate their art. IF Jackson were found irrefutably guilty of sexual perversions with young boys, would it change anything about how we evaluate his music? That’s the philosophical question here, and the argument doesn’t rely whatsoever on Jackson being guilty or not.
5 Saida // Sep 9, 2009 at 4:31 pm
Thank you for your reply to my belated comment. I just stumbled upon your article in a google search.
ad 1) All answers are replies, but not all replies are answers. I’ve asked you specifically what makes you believe that MJ is most likely guilty. I’ve asked you what convinced YOU, not “other people”, of that.
ad 2) I’m aware of your concern. However, you’re posting on a topic concerned with everyday ethics. You’ve claimed that MJ is most likely guilty. Given that child molestation is one, if not the most egregious, hideous crime these days, I think that making such allegations should be based on sound research and careful evaluations. I feel that everything else leads any discurs about ethics ad absurdum.
If you’re going to discuss whether immoral art is beautiful, why don’t you use an artist whose immorality has been proven?
I wouldn’t bother if you were just another poorly educated babbit. But you’re obviously an educated person and thus I’m all the more appalled that you would jump on that band waggon dedicated to tearing MJ down, without checking the facts and having to offer any solid analysis that leads to your premise. You simply can’t treat that as a hypothetical case, not at the present time. There’s just too much controversy out there.
I feel that examining MJ’s career and life offers many issues that would make for interesting articles on the topic of everyday ethics. What about the media’s witchhunt on him, what about the public being so willing to condemn him even before the trial, why do men seem to be so much more prone to condemning him than women? Just to mention a few. There’s much food for thought here.
6 Elijah Weber // Sep 10, 2009 at 6:27 am
My judgments of Michael Jackson is based on the logical principle of abductive inference, aka inference to the best explanation. Here’s what we know.
1. Jackson was formally accused of child molestation two different times. He also paid several settlements to avoid going to court with other children. He has paid almost $100 million dollars to his accusers. Why pay millions to people who are crazy, as you suggest, and also lying about you?
2. His accusers have been able to successfully describe his penis, in detail. They also report being given alcohol by Jackson, something even he acknowledged. How do we account for this, except to conclude that Jackson, at a minimum, tried to get them drunk and then exposed himself to them?
3. A recent book by J. Randy Taraborrelli, who is considered the foremost authority on Michael Jackson and spent nearly two decades by his side, reports that Jackson was gay, unnaturally attracted to children, and that the Jackson camp was extremely concerned about Michael’s behavior with young boys. It’s not crazy to think that Jackson, given that he had many opportunities, might have acted on his impulses once or twice.
4. Jackson consistently demonstrated a deep self-loathing, having numerous plastic surgery procedures and abusing pain medications. These are indicators of serious depression. Being guilty of sexual inappropriateness might make a guy pretty depressed.
You ask why I would jump on this bandwagon dedicated to tearing down Michael Jackson. I see it quite differently. When Jackson died, there was almost no mention of these allegations. He was vivified as a god of pop music, which is a big problem if he actually was guilty. The bandwagon, I’m afraid, is the one you are sitting on. At a minimum, it’s not obvious that my view is some sort of fairy tale while yours is rooted in hard facts, which seems to be your view. The facts are inconclusive, despite your sense of certainty. I might ask you why you are so convinced that Jackson is innocent, in spite of legitimate evidence to the contrary.
But again, this is irrelevant to my article. It’s possible that Jackson is guilty, and possible that he isn’t. I see no reason that I “can’t treat this as a hypothetical.” Philosophers create hypothetical cases all the time; in the face of uncertainty, it’s common to make some assumptions in order to utilize the example effectively. That’s really all I’m doing.
Although we disagree, both about Jackson’s likely guilt or innocence and about the appropriateness of the example, I do thank you for reading and for caring enough about ethics and philosophy to comment.
7 Disappointed in you // Jun 1, 2010 at 7:59 pm
This article is disappointing that someone would be so willing to follow whatever the tabloids are saying. Why not do some REAL research the case and situation? Are court transcripts too hard for you to read? Either way, there’s no evidence for either side anyways so why even assume that he was guilty? This article on this website is ironic because you are being a hypocrite.
I hope that, in the future, people do their homework and then look down at articles such as this one and come to conclusion that it’s just really just people being stupid and sheep no matter how ‘educated’ they are.
8 Elijah Weber // Jun 2, 2010 at 6:26 am
Please refer to the editor’s note. The purpose of this article is not to make any substantive claims about Michael Jackson, but to explore the philosophical question of whether immoral art, whether itself immoral or produced by someone of questionable moral character, is still good art. The example of Michael Jackson is utilized in an effort to highlight the significance of philosophical questions to everyday events. The question of Michael Jackson’s guilt or innocence is irrelevant to this purpose, since it is being utilized as a hypothetical example.
Future commenters, the editorial staff at Everdayethics.org asks that you please refer to and think about the editor’s note, and the purpose of this example to the philosophical issues under discussion in this article, before commenting. All future comments on the guilt or innocence of Michael Jackson, the reliability of the evidence for either view, the accuracy of the media’s portrayal of Mr. Jackson, etc. will not be published, because they are irrelevant to the philosophical question of whether moral considerations are relevant to what constitutes good art. This policy will be enacted in order to properly focus the discussion at hand. Continued discussion of the factual accuracy of a hypothetical example is inappropriate, since such examples are explicitly not intended to represent fact.
Leave a Comment