Should We Support Immoral Art or Artists? If We Shouldn't, Should We Also Not Support Animal Agriculture?

Should We Support Immoral Art or Artists? If We Shouldn't, Should We Also Not Support Animal Agriculture?

Philosophers have long debated whether it is morally permissible to consume and appreciate art created by immoral artists—whether that means watching films by abusive directors, listening to music by violent musicians, or supporting creators who have engaged in serious wrongdoing. Several arguments suggest that such support is morally problematic. Interestingly, those very arguments, when extended, apply with at least equal or greater force to the question of whether we should support the wrongful raising and killing of animals for food.

1. Arguments Against Supporting Immoral Art or Artists

(a) Complicity and Contribution
When we buy, stream, or otherwise support immoral artists, we contribute—however slightly—to their wealth, influence, and prestige. Our actions, combined with many others, sustain their platforms and enable them to flourish despite their wrongs. This makes us complicit, even if indirectly, in their continued success.

(b) Endorsement and Expression
Our cultural practices have symbolic meaning. Consuming and praising the works of immoral artists can communicate, even if unintentionally, a kind of approval or indifference toward their behavior. Our actions may be seen as tacitly excusing or trivializing the harm they have done.

(c) Moral Corruption
Engaging with art made by wrongdoers can shape our moral character. If we normalize or excuse their actions in order to enjoy their work, we may become less sensitive to injustice, less willing to hold wrongdoers accountable, and more comfortable with moral compromise.

(d) Justice and Desert
Justice is partly about giving people what they deserve. Wrongdoers do not deserve continued adulation, wealth, and rewards. Supporting their art distributes goods—money, attention, admiration—to people who are not entitled to them, which is unjust.

2. Examples of Immoral Art and Artists

• Film: Roman Polanski’s acclaimed films (Chinatown, The Pianist) exist alongside his conviction for sexual assault of a minor.

• Music: Michael Jackson’s music remains globally celebrated despite credible allegations of child abuse. Similarly, R. Kelly’s catalog is stained by his history of sexual exploitation.

• Visual Art: Caravaggio, a brilliant Renaissance painter, was also a violent criminal, reportedly guilty of murder.

• Literature: Ezra Pound, an influential poet, was also an outspoken fascist sympathizer.

These cases illustrate the moral tension: the works may be aesthetically or historically significant, but the creators committed serious wrongs.

3. Extending These Arguments to Animal Agriculture

(a) Complicity and Contribution
Purchasing meat and animal products directly sustains industries that cause immense animal suffering and death. Unlike cases of supporting immoral art, where the harm may already have been done, the harm of animal agriculture is ongoing and demand-driven. Each purchase helps ensure future animals will be bred, confined, and killed.

(b) Endorsement and Expression
Eating meat also expresses and reinforces the social norm that animals exist to be consumed. This signals indifference to their suffering and helps normalize an institution that treats sentient beings as mere commodities.

(c) Moral Corruption
When we consume animal products without reflection, we risk dulling our moral concern for nonhuman beings. Participating in practices that systematically disregard animal suffering may make us more comfortable with other forms of disregard and domination.

(d) Justice and Desert
If animals matter morally—and many arguments suggest they do—then industries that exploit and kill them are unjust. Supporting those industries rewards wrongdoing and denies animals the consideration they deserve.

4. The Ineffectiveness Objection

A common objection is that refusing to support immoral art has no real-world impact. If an artist is already dead, such as Wagner or Caravaggio, or so wealthy and culturally entrenched that our individual boycott makes no difference, then what is the point? Similarly, with a single consumer’s choice, the effect on massive industries seems negligible.

Response:

• Threshold effects: Even if one act makes no difference, large-scale collective effects are built from many individual choices. One person boycotting an immoral artist or refusing meat may seem insignificant, but social change happens only when enough people make such choices.

• Symbolic significance: Our actions matter not only causally but also symbolically. Avoiding immoral art expresses disapproval of wrongdoing, signals solidarity with victims, and shapes cultural norms. The same applies to refusing meat—it communicates that the exploitation of animals is not acceptable.

• Character and integrity: Even if no external consequences follow, our choices reflect and shape who we are. To refuse to support wrongdoing can be understood as an act of moral integrity, a refusal to participate in or condone injustice.

5. Comparison: Art vs. Animals

There are some differences. Supporting immoral art often does not generate new harm—the wrongdoing has already occurred—whereas supporting animal agriculture nearly always causes new harm by sustaining demand. In that sense, complicity is stronger with meat than with music or film. Likewise, while both art and food choices can express values, food choices are daily, public, and repeated, giving them greater symbolic and social weight.

6. Conclusion

The best philosophical arguments against supporting immoral art—complicity, endorsement, moral corruption, and desert—apply at least as strongly to not supporting animal agriculture. Indeed, because eating meat directly drives ongoing suffering and killing, the moral case for not buying and eating animal products is even stronger than the case for avoiding the work of immoral artists. Even if one person’s abstention seems to make little difference, the symbolic, normative, and character-based reasons for refusing to participate in wrongdoing remain powerful.