Working in the Arts: Ethical Dilemmas

[verschleierung]

I am a theatre craftsman. I build scenery, rig lighting and sound equipment, install touring shows (broadway and off-broadway), I manage actors and technicians. I have a very high standard of performance for myself and for those I work around and above. My primary expectations are competence and excellence. I don't put up with anything less.

My dilemma is that I do not believe in living off of expropriated wealth (i.e. Federal Endowments) but every theatre I have looked into (and currently work for) is non-profit and hence are somehow subsidized by tax dollars.

On top of all that, my industry leaders and most of my coworkers are calling for grassroots action to pressure the government to instate a Secretary of the Arts. I am strongly opposed to any government interference in business and have found myself on the wrong side of many of my coworkers because of my views. "But you WORK in the Arts," they say.

As Hugh Axton said, If ever you find a contradiction "check your premise." Well I am not sure how to get back to the original premise and I am torn between my morality and my career choice (which, in itself is NOT immoral).

I was just wondering if the forum had any comments or suggestions.

Thanks,

Verschleierung

[Sarrisan]

Do you love your job? If so, you should stay in it and do your best to advance yourself. No, you do not have to support or advocate for government intervention, but in some businesses these days, you simply have no choice. You shouldn't give up your happiness just to hold up some abstract principle for the Glory of Capitalism (That would be the ultimate contradiction of Objectivist ethics).

If you can't find a private theater, than simply pick the least-worse one you can find. Do what you can to advocate for privatization, but remember not to ruin your relationships with your coworkers over it (A job, I'm sure, can be hell if you're in a hostile environment). Do your activism outside of the workplace if you need to (Or don't do it at all - there is nothing that says you must be an activist to be an Objectivist).

Basically, just ask yourself "what is in the best interests of my long-term happiness?" Is whether a theater (Or wherever you find employment) accepts government money or not an essential quality you should be looking for? If it is a non-essential factor, then you can probably find other qualities that outweigh it and still make your job meaningful.

[verschleierung]

Do you love your job?

I ABSOLUTELY love my job and intend to stay in it for as long the the economy allows for it. My "activism" seems to come a little too naturally when my ethics are contradicted, which is of course a personal problem.

You shouldn't give up your happiness just to hold up some abstract principle for the Glory of Capitalism (That would be the ultimate contradiction of Objectivist ethics).

Absolutely, I sacrifice for no man. I suppose I was wondering if anybody else is experiencing the professional "contradictions." I feel like I am alone in this. Not that I mind entirely.

[DavidOdden]

My dilemma is that I do not believe in living off of expropriated wealth (i.e. Federal Endowments)...

As Hugh Axton said, If ever you find a contradiction "check your premise."

Let's see if this helps. I don't think that your major premise is correct (that is, can be arrived at my meticulous reason). I don't question your belief, I question whether that's the right belief to have. Presumably you don't believe in initiation of force. Now, how do you get from that valid assumption to a principle about not living off of expropriated wealth? I can imagine a logical path that gets you roughly there, but then the "correct" conclusion would be that life is nearly if not in fact totally impossible. Your principle ought to be more broad, saying that you should reject all benefits that are tainted with tax money. Medical research is massively tainted by taxpayer support to NIH and NSF, and medical schools are substantially underwritten by taxation. To be consistent, you should not see a doctor. The groceries that sustain your body are transported on roads built and maintaned by taxpayers, so you should not eat anything that you don't grow yourself. You also should stay at home and move from place to place on taxpayer-financed roads and sidewalks. Your water and sewer probably depend on taxpayer-supported lines, so you need to dig a well and build a septic tank. You may need to have your education removed from your head (not surgically of course since that involves indirect government funding). In short, the taint of government funding is ubiquitous.

The contradiction is the idea that a man can live morally and the government can by right forcibly expropriate wealth. This is clearly false, and the proper resolution to the contradiction is to recognize that the government can not by right forcibly expropriate wealth. From a practical perspective, you should ask, what am I doing to eliminate the contradiction -- am I actively working to maintain the contradiction? I do know that if we could sweep the narcotic of tax support away, private enterprise would step in and make possible what you are doing right now. Private companies like MGM already do something like that.

My job is similar in important ways to yours: my employer is a non-profit altruistic institution which actually receives direct tax funding, and there is a very strong anti-business culture (though not as strong as in your world). It can be very difficult to survive intellectually in such a climate. I have the advantage that I get to undermine the bastards and get paid for it.

[verschleierung]

You may need to have your education removed from your head (not surgically of course since that involves indirect government funding).

LOL!

From a practical perspective, you should ask, what am I doing to eliminate the contradiction -- am I actively working to maintain the contradiction?

This bit of insight is what I was looking for. I otherwise have assessed the situation as bleak when what i consider evil is "ubiquitous."

I do know that if we could sweep the narcotic of tax support away, private enterprise would step in and make possible what you are doing right now.

This is true, although unfortunately sparse and mostly based in Las Vegas (nothing against Vegas).

Thank you for your insight.

Edited January 24, 2009 by verschleierung

[W.C.Meyer]

If your theater company were not an altruistic not-for-profit business (if you can call it that), would you rely on government aid?

I am also in the arts, and am troubled by the future of higher aesthetics.

[Chris.S]

I am a theatre craftsman. I build scenery, rig lighting and sound equipment, install touring shows (broadway and off-broadway), I manage actors and technicians. I have a very high standard of performance for myself and for those I work around and above. My primary expectations are competence and excellence. I don't put up with anything less.

My dilemma is that I do not believe in living off of expropriated wealth (i.e. Federal Endowments) but every theatre I have looked into (and currently work for) is non-profit and hence are somehow subsidized by tax dollars.

On top of all that, my industry leaders and most of my coworkers are calling for grassroots action to pressure the government to instate a Secretary of the Arts. I am strongly opposed to any government interference in business and have found myself on the wrong side of many of my coworkers because of my views. "But you WORK in the Arts," they say.

As Hugh Axton said, If ever you find a contradiction "check your premise." Well I am not sure how to get back to the original premise and I am torn between my morality and my career choice (which, in itself is NOT immoral).

I was just wondering if the forum had any comments or suggestions.

Thanks,

Verschleierung

It's not just the Arts, man. Government is in everything. And my career choice (construction) is one of the heaviest regulated industries in Canada. What I'm learning in school for the Construction business right now is basically how to build with the least interference by government and make the most money. And the funny thing with that is the best way to get back at the government is to build stuff far and away beyond their own regulations and charge huge amounts of money. The biggest things that kill construction companies nowadays are building at the bare minimum of government standards (and then the owner doesn't like what he bought), and having such low hiring practices and expectations that jobs are done very poorly to make as fast a dollar as possible.

I think in your case the best way to go about stickin it to the man is to start your own theatre and/or theatre company, and draw as many Artsy-fartsy Objectivists to you as possible. That way you can have the company work as privately as you make it, and have employees that understand where you're coming from philosophically (and therefore work better). And if you really have to, follow Rearden's example. Work with them to the letter and give them nothing more than they ask (like you have a gun to your head).