There is no such thing as a ethical superiority both manner.
I imply, I do not say this to sound conceited however I feel I would definitely really feel morally superior for opting to not play it if I discovered it was aiding the Russians of their struggle to any capability.
You’ll be able to’t separate artwork from artist on this vogue when hurt is actively being accomplished, and is aided by consumption. You try this when the artist is lifeless within the floor and that consumption is not hurting others. Something much less is to separate the patron from emotions of guilt as a result of they worth their very own leisure greater than any hurt generated.
Edit: For individuals who are utilizing whataboutism and utilizing this idea in broader scopes, you are 100% appropriate, but it surely’s not some type of ‘gotcha’.
The place it differs although is that that is for purely leisure functions and never a operate of survival, this doesn’t fall beneath “There is no such thing as a such factor as moral consumption beneath capitalism”.
That being stated, EVERYONE makes these types of issues of non-public want or need versus the moral affect of that consumption, whether or not you are conscious of it or not. The query is although, the place do you personally draw that line?
This concept is not equal amongst types of consumption, nonetheless, because the measured injury will likely be completely different from occasion to occasion. Which means, that sure, one motion might be thought-about extra morally reprehensible than one other.
That final bit is not an argument of the extent of morality of this specific dialogue, however of the idea as a complete.