Henry David Thoreau is proof that if you invent the No. 2 pencil, write best selling books, influence Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. people will still ridicule you for getting help from your Mom.
There must be some internal urge in humans like hunger or horniness that takes over their rational mind and compels them to assign the shameful label of "hypocrite" upon others.
When your insecurity and jealousy is too uncomfortable to deal with you can knock a successful person down below your level by finding a flaw (real or imagined) and call them a hypocrite. This of course negates all of that person's wisdom and accomplishments because being a hypocrite is the worst thing you can be in this world apparently.
Walden is about simple living and never claimed to be about one man against the world rugged self-sufficiency.
If you don't know what this post is about go to Google and type in:
"thoreau mom laundry reddit" and read all the posts
typed up with zeal about Thoreau and Walden.
A Sketchy History Of Pencil Lead
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Disobedience_(Thoreau)#Influence
Yeah, anytime I hear people wanting to give up the art because of the artist I think you'd have to give up a lot of media and live a life without a lot of books, music, movies. Also, that's just the stuff we know about. And there's probably some evil person who had a hand in assembling my car but I'm not going to stop driving it because of that. I'm still going to rock to Led Zeppelin.
Very good point about the car! Art is obviously more personal, but yeah, the fact is that anything that makes up our personal world has statistically benefited in some way by the acts of bad people.
Only the person who assembles your car doesn't have massive fame and fortune, which you contribute to by not only paying for their work, but not speaking out against whatever abhorrent thing they did you're choosing to overlook (while an assembly person isn't the one profiting from the sale of the car they built, nor do they have any power or reputation that lets them get away with whatever they want) to facilitate them continuing to abuse others.
There are a number of logical inconsistencies in your comment.
First, “someone who had a hand in assembling my car” necessarily includes the corporation employing the people involved in assembly, not just the laborers themselves.
You’ve probably heard the phrase “There is no ethical consumption under capitalism.” It’s relevant here. To make a profit, the companies involved in the R&D, production, marketing, distribution, and sale of any product, like a car, must pay the workers less than their labor is worth; this is inherently exploitative. If an “ethical” company tried to enter into this space and avoided doing that, it would be outcompeted by unethical companies that exploited their workers. Strategies to avoid this, like injecting capital from elsewhere, simply move where the exploitation occurs.
Any art funded, produced, marketed, or distributed by a corporation cannot be ethically consumed. Art created by an independent artist can be ethically consumed, but only if all of their supplies were ethically sourced.
As such, the point - that abandoning art because of something one artist involved did requires the use of a line of reasoning that would necessarily result in refusing to make almost all other purchases - holds.
It’s especially relevant given that the original post regarded someone who has no fortune because he is dead. A dead person’s fame is irrelevant. Unless there is an estate or some other institute that is profiting from increased visibility into his work, their art can be consumed or criticized on its own merits. That doesn’t mean there isn’t room for criticism or analysis of it with the additional context from the artist’s life, but if such criticism takes the form I’ve described above - if it boils down to “You shouldn’t consume X because of Y thing related to its creation” - it’s reasonable to dismiss it due to it relying upon the same fallacy.
Listening to a CD you already purchased has no further impact on the band’s livelihood.
Streaming their song on Spotify has a negligible impact, but it doesn’t “facilitate their abuse” any more than buying a loaf of bread does. In either case, the companies involved are enriched more than the laborer, and since the companies themselves are themselves a larger problem than just the few members of a band could possibly be, you have to choose between:
Saying that someone should not consume Led Zeppelin but that buying a car is okay would fall firmly into the “refusing to consume a product arbitrarily” category.