Eth8. Reasons to believe jazz is not evil

Discussion

---

Critique of Conceptions of Evil

No one can make an argument as to whether jazz is or is not evil without defining evil first.

---

Objections to evil as the absence of good

Wikipedia: Evil reports that evil has multiple meanings, including being the opposite or absense of good. This is a poor conception of evil and is mistaken. The absence of good could just mean neutral, but not have any negative connotations. A tiny smooth rock on the beach is neither good nor bad, so there is an absence of good, yet there is no evil involved concerning the rock.

CONCLUSION: Therefore, evil cannot be the lack of good since evil requires some additional negative aspects, such as creating unnecessary pain, or acting immorally, etc.

---

---

Critique of Spinoza's understanding of good and evil

Baruch/Benedict Spinoza (1632-1677) gives definitions for good and evil:

“1. By good, I understand that which we certainly know is useful to us.”

“2. By evil, on the contrary, I understand that which we certainly know hinders us from possessing anything that is good. (bold and bold italic not in original)

---

Who does Spinoza include in his "we" and "us"

Right away we have a problem of interpreting what Spinoza means and to whom does he refer when he talks about "we" and "us." Who is "us"? The candidates for us potentially include kinds from the list below. The list states who 'us' might be limited to and who would be excluded who ought to be included.

💠 (HS) Humans/Homo sapiens would only include members of the biological species homo sapiens sapiens. This would arbitrarily exclude all prior now extinct potential persons with self-conscious minds of a different species of archaic humans or possibly other primates, not to mention Martians or other alien persons.

Wikipedia: Human informs us that humans “are a species of highly intelligent primates. They are the only extant members of the subtribe Hominina and—together with chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans—are part of the family Hominidae (the great apes, or hominids). Humans are terrestrial animals, characterized by their erect posture and bipedal locomotion; high manual dexterity and heavy tool use compared to other animals; open-ended and complex language use compared to other animal communications; larger, more complex brains than other primates; and highly advanced and organized societies.” Genetically, humans “like most animals, are a diploid eukaryotic species. Each somatic cell has two sets of 23 chromosomes, each set received from one parent; gametes have only one set of chromosomes, which is a mixture of the two parental sets. Among the 23 pairs of chromosomes there are 22 pairs of autosomes and one pair of sex chromosomes. Like other mammals, humans have an XY sex-determination system, so that females have the sex chromosomes XX and males have XY.

“No two humans—not even monozygotic twins—are genetically identical. Genes and environment influence human biological variation in visible characteristics, physiology, disease susceptibility and mental abilities. The exact influence of genes and environment on certain traits is not well understood. Compared to the great apes, human gene sequences—even among African populations—are remarkably homogeneous. On average, genetic similarity between any two humans is 99.5%-99.9%. There is about two to three times more genetic diversity within the wild chimpanzee population than in the entire human gene pool.”

“A rough and incomplete human genome was assembled as an average of a number of humans in 2003, and currently efforts are being made to achieve a sample of the genetic diversity of the species (see International HapMap Project). By present estimates, humans have approximately 22,000 genes. The variation in human DNA is very small compared to other species, possibly suggesting a population bottleneck during the Late Pleistocene (around 100,000 years ago), in which the human population was reduced to a small number of breeding pairs. By comparing mitochondrial DNA, which is inherited only from the mother, geneticists have concluded that the last female common ancestor whose genetic marker is found in all modern humans, the so-called mitochondrial Eve, must have lived around 90,000 to 200,000 years ago.”

EXCLUDED: All persons who are not homo sapiens sapiens could possibly include any extinct species of archaic humans, that includes hominids, Neanderthals, or Denisovans, Homo rhodesiensis (300–125 ka), Homo heidelbergensis (600–200 ka), Homo naledi, Homo ergaster, and Homo antecessor. Other animal types that may be persons include chimpanzees, gorillas, Martians 👽, all technologically sophisticated outer space aliens 👾 such as Spock's father Sarek, Vulcan Ambassador to the United Federation of Planets 🪐, angels, leprechauns, fairies, trolls, and giants. It would also eliminate any non-biological persons, such as artificial intelligence self-conscious android robots who can pass the Turing test such as Lieutenant Commander Data from Star Trek, or everyone in the list of humanoid aliens.

Every one of these kinds of possible persons has needs and wants where things could be useful to them. This means there are goods for these individual types and so Spinoza ought not exclude them from who should be included in his 'us' group that can receive 'goods.'

Additionally, many non-person animals with minds who are conscious or self-conscious have needs and wants that can be supported or hindered from satisfying these wants. Hence, good and bad things can happen to them as well, according to Spiniza's conceptions of good and evil.

💠 (SB) Sentient or Conscious beings, ones with a capacity to feel, perceive, or experience subjectively, especially sensing and feeling pleasure or pain. This would include most or all mammals (over 6,400 species) and likely most animals (over 7.77 million species on Earth).

💠 (HO) Hominids, including humans 🏃‍♀️ 🏃, gorillas 🦍, chimpanzees 🐒, bonobos , and orangutans 🦧.

Spinoza would probably want to exclude all hominids except humans, but how could he when things can be known with certainty by them that are useful or hindrances, such as treats, or electric shocks, so Spinoza should not exclude them from 'we' and 'us.'

💠 (RB) Rational beings, who strive to conform one's beliefs with one's reasons to believe, and one's actions with one's reasons for action.

💠 (SC) Self-conscious beings, recognize their own identity and their own character, feelings, motives, or desires with both internal self-awareness or external self-awareness. Self-conscious beings can be found in three areas. First is bodily self-awareness, including proprioception and sensation, allowing animals to recognize they are different from the environment. That recognition explains why animals do not eat themselves. “The second type of self-awareness in animals is social self-awareness. This type of awareness is seen in highly social animals and is the awareness that they have a role within themselves in order to survive. This type of awareness allows animals to interact with each other. The final type of self-awareness is introspective awareness responsible for animals understanding their own feelings, desires, and beliefs.”

💠 (P) Person is not a biological category at all. Biology is irrelevant. Any entity that satisfies the relevant criteria for personhood qualifies regardless of biological, or even physical, make-up.

“According to philosopher Mary Anne Warren (1973), "the traits which are most central to the concept of personhood . . . are, very roughly, the following: 1. consciousness . . . and in particular the capacity to feel pain; 2. reasoning (the developed capacity to solve new and relatively complex problems); 3. self-motivated activity (activity which is relatively independent of either genetic or direct external control); 4. the capacity to communicate, by whatever means, messages of an indefinite variety of types . . . ; 5. the presence of self-concepts, and self-awareness. . . ."

Warren thinks that these traits comprise what we mean by a person in the full-blown sense, but that a being need not have all of these attributes in order properly to be considered a person in some sense. I think that most of us would agree with that. We might lose the ability to communicate and yet still remain the same essential person. And if self-motivated activity were truly a necessary condition for personhood, we’d all be in trouble some of the time!

But Warren seems to believe that reasoning is both a necessary and sufficient condition for personhood. This raises the intriguing possibility that some non-human animals like chimps and dolphins might qualify as persons, but also the disturbing implication that some human beings would not qualify, such as the severely retarded or demented. In other words, if we set the bar as high as Warren has, we logically exclude many vulnerable human populations from the category of persons, and thus from the rights we ascribe to persons, which is very troubling.” (bold and bold italic not in original)

Spinoza would be surprised as well as shocked to discover that scientist's experiments in self-recognition reveal that chimpanzees and other apes compare the most to humans with the most convincing findings and straightforward evidence in the relativity of self-awareness in animals so far. In addition to other primates, dolphins were put to a similar test and achieved the same results when psycho-biologist at the New York Aquarium Diana Reiss discovered that bottlenose dolphins can recognize themselves in mirrors. Elephants could also recognize themselves in a mirror. Researchers used the mark test or mirror test on magpies and they also passed the self-recognition test.

---

---

Certainly known requirement unnecessary for good or evil

Both of Spinoza's definitions suffer from the same defect. Suppose that U is extremely useful to us. Would this make U be good? Spinoza must answer that according to his definition of good U would not be good unless it were also "certainly known." This epistemological requirement is not required for something to be useful to us. Unknown things can be (potentially) useful to us before they are discovered or known. "Useful to us" means useful to beings with minds. Spinoza's definitions require that the useful items must be "certainly known" to the users to qualify as good. The same problem is inherent in his definition for evil. Evil things can happen to people in situations where no one knows anything. A lack of knowledge cannot prevent evil from occurring to people.

---

---

Problems for hindrance theories of evil

Dictionary.com defines a hindrance as:

“impeding, stopping, preventing, or the like; the state of being hindered; a person or thing that hinders” and something hinders when it “causes a delay, interruption, or difficulty by hampering or impeding. Hindrances can prevent from someone or something from doing, acting, or happening. A hindrance may be an object or an impediment.”

The Spinozistic equation, if we ignore the requirement for being "certainly known," is that the good is the useful while evil hinders possession of it (the useful).

The equation has several problems. Hindering does not always prevent success. If one eventually succeeds despite the hindrance then this cannot be as bad as were there to be complete prevention of success. This distinction requires recognition of relative versus absolute evil. Absolute evil cannot be overcome by definition since it requires complete prevention from ever finding the useful.

Are there many things in the universe of which we are unaware yet that would be useful to us, especially if we knew about it with certainty? Yes, there is potentially an infinite number of such discoveries. Are all of the possibly useful to us things in the universe going to eventually be discovered by us? No, they are not. On Spinoza's conception of absolute evil, the universe itself exhibits absolute evil since its vastness and potential infinity is a hindrance to our finding out these useful things. This does not sound right, therefore this is an objection to Spinoza's definition of evil.

The Higgs boson was hard to detect. One could describe some of the difficulties in finding evidence for the Higgs Boson to be a hindrance.

“Although the Higgs field exists everywhere, proving its existence was far from easy. In principle, it can be proved to exist by detecting its excitations, which manifest as Higgs particles (the Higgs boson), but these are extremely difficult to produce and detect, due to the energy required to produce them and their very rare production even if the energy is sufficient. It was therefore several decades before the first evidence of the Higgs boson was found. Particle colliders, detectors, and computers capable of looking for Higgs bosons took more than 30 years (c. 1980–2010) to develop.

The importance of this fundamental question led to a 40-year search, and the construction of one of the world's most expensive and complex experimental facilities to date, CERN's Large Hadron Collider, in an attempt to create Higgs bosons and other particles for observation and study. On 4 July 2012, the discovery of a new particle with a mass between 125 and 127 GeV/c2 was announced; physicists suspected that it was the Higgs boson. Since then, the particle has been shown to behave, interact, and decay in many of the ways predicted for Higgs particles by the Standard Model, as well as having even parity and zero spin, two fundamental attributes of a Higgs boson. This also means it is the first elementary scalar particle discovered in nature. . . . Higgs boson is also very unstable, decaying into other particles almost immediately.” (bold not in original)

The Higgs boson has remained hidden to humans for more than 300,000 years--as long as humans have been in existence until it was discovered in 2012 and fairly confirmed in 2013. Now, that's what you can call a 300,000 year old hindrance. Was it evil? Intuitively, it seems not because otherwise the universe is intrinsically evil as its complexity and immensity are a hindrance to us finding out everything that might be useful. Since no one thinks that reality is itself intrinsically evil, Spinoza's definition for evil is wrong.

---

---

Evil as wickedness

Another conception of evil is that of wickedness where a wicked person commits an evil act consciously and of free will. Evil actions are those that should not be done. Evil in this sense is the opposite of good and occurs when someone acts immorally. Immorality is a violation of moral laws and refers to agents doing or thinking something they know or believe to be wrong.

---

---

How this applies to jazz

The attribution of evil to jazz has numerous possible applications. Categories of what the adjective evil may apply to cover evil musicians, evil music, evil consequences, evil origins, evil aspects, or evil environments of jazz.

➢ Can each attribution be shown false?

Assume evil means wickedness and wicked acts are ones willingly and knowingly perpetrated by bad people for immoral purposes.

➢ Are jazz musicians ever wicked while playing jazz?

No more than any other profession.

➢ What would it mean for the music itself to be evil?

Music cannot do anything intentionally therefore music itself cannot knowingly cause any immoral activities. Therefore, music cannot be wicked. Nevertheless, a critic may argue that the musicians can unintentionally or intentionally promote bad things with their music.

➢ Can music have evil consequences?

Music having evil consequences has to mean that when music is played it causes bad things to happen. What counts as bad things? Anything that is immoral would be bad, or cause unnecessary suffering.

➢ Does jazz music cause immoral things to occur?

It would seem that in the past over the first thirty years of jazz's existence that some people believed that listening to jazz caused immoral behavior.

➢ Which immoral behavior is the most likely?

Possible immoral behaviors that listening to jazz might cause often claimed by critics:

dancing

promotion of bad taste 👅

Because jazz emphasizes sensual harmonies and rhythm it:

promotes lascivious and licentious behavior in both women and men

encourages sexual intercourse (outside of marriage)

encourages prostitution

encourages physical and carnal appetites that make people act on instinct to possess the desired thing so as to quench these wants. Such appetites include desire for wealth, power, lust, or greed.

“Jazz compositions may contain at most 10% syncopation; the remainder must consist of a natural legato movement devoid of the hysterical rhythmic reverses characteristic of the barbarian races and conductive to dark instincts alien to the German people (so-called riffs).” (bold not in original)

fraternization between the races

“Harry Anslinger, commissioner of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics between 1930 and 1962, more or less invented the war on drugs with his reefer madness war on jazz. He said it [jazz] sounded like “the jungles in the dead of night” and could “lure white women.” (bold not in original)

encourages drug misuse, such as smoking marijuana or shooting heroin

The music encourages emotionalism so it can cause:

frenzied or psychotic behavior

“an entirely different type of music might invoke savage instincts.”

overstimulation

“Jazz is worse than the saloon! Why?” I asked.”

“Because it affects our young people especially,” said Mr. Bott. “It is degrading. It lowers all the moral standards. Unlike liquor, a great deal of its harm is direct and immediate. But it also leads to undesirable things. The jazz is too often followed by the joy-ride.” (bold not in original.)

Jazz has evil origins:

born out of black arts and Blues music

played in brothels in New Orleans red light district, Storyville from 1897–1917

---

Assessment of the evils alleged of jazz

The bulk of the criticisms above were made by prudes and racists from the 1920's who likely had Victorian morality and were strong social conservatives. How do we assess their complaints from the point of view of the 21st century?

Take the above complaints against jazz in order and consider the truth of their claims.

Does jazz cause dancing 🕺? It can, but much modern jazz is not as easy to dance to as it may have been in the 1920's when the music was ragtime or popular music with a syncopated beat. Dancing can possibly be considered a way to encourage interaction between the sexes and this can lead to possible sexual activity. Does this strike most people from the Westernized 21st century as problematic? Generally speaking, it does not. How to prove this? Take a survey of current opinion about dancing.

This website argues that some dancing as found in the Bible can be acceptable, especially if it is done without any partner of the opposite sex. On the other hand, this particular website frowns upon dancing if it leads to “examples of how dancing can become sinful and even cause others to sin. If it is associated with false worship, a drunken party or seductive entertainment it is sinful.”

Dancing to jazz need not lead to any false worship. Neither is jazz always surrounded by alcohol as there are some liquor free jazz establishments such as "The Jazz Bakery" in Los Angeles, CA that existed for many years without serving any alcohol.

---

PoJ.fm chats with ChatGPT (January 30 2023 version) about whether or not jazz is evil

now PoJ.fm: Baruch/Benedict Spinoza (1632-1677) gives these definitions for good and evil:

“1. By good, I understand that which we certainly know is useful to us.”

“2. By evil, on the contrary, I understand that which we certainly know hinders us from possessing anything that is good.”

Spinoza defines "good" as that which is useful to us, and "evil" as that which hinders us from possessing anything that is good.

Are there any problems or objections to defining good or evil as Spinoza does?

ChatGPT: Yes, there are several objections to defining good and evil as Spinoza does. Some of these include:

Subjectivity: Spinoza's definition of good and evil is subjective, as what is useful or hinders someone may differ from person to person.

Lack of moral judgment: Spinoza's definition does not take into account the moral aspect of good and evil. It only considers practical usefulness and hindrance, but does not address whether an action or behavior is inherently right or wrong.

Ignores cultural and historical context: Spinoza's definition does not take into account cultural and historical differences in what is considered good or evil.

Difficulty in applying to complex situations: In complex situations, it may be difficult to determine what is useful or hinders us, leading to uncertainty in applying Spinoza's definitions.

No room for personal growth: Spinoza's definitions do not allow for the possibility of personal growth, as they only focus on immediate usefulness and hindrance.

These objections demonstrate that while Spinoza's definitions of good and evil are straightforward, they are limited in their ability to capture the full complexity and nuance of these concepts.

PoJ.fm: Are there more objections or problems with Spinoza's definitions of good and evil?

ChatGPT: Yes, there are a few more objections to Spinoza's definitions of good and evil:

Lack of consideration for the common good: Spinoza's definitions are individualistic and focus only on what is useful to the individual. They do not consider the impact of actions on the greater community or society, which could lead to actions being considered "good" that are harmful to others.

Ignores ethical considerations: Spinoza's definitions do not account for ethical considerations, such as fairness, justice, or equality.

Does not address questions of meaning: Spinoza's definitions do not provide answers to questions about the meaning or purpose of life, which are important considerations for many people in understanding the concept of good and evil.

Difficulties with defining "useful": The concept of what is "useful" is open to interpretation and can change over time. Spinoza's definitions do not account for these changes or the subjective nature of what is considered useful.

Ignores the psychological dimension of good and evil: Spinoza's definitions focus solely on practical considerations, but do not take into account the psychological and emotional aspects of good and evil.

These objections demonstrate that while Spinoza's definitions of good and evil are simple and straightforward, they are limited in their ability to capture the full range of meanings and implications of these concepts.

PoJ.fm: To whom does Spinoza refer when he says "we" and "us" in his definitions for good and evil?

ChatGPT: In his definitions of good and evil, Spinoza uses the terms "we" and "us" to refer to individuals or people in general. The use of the first-person plural pronoun implies that his definitions apply to all people, as they are based on common experiences and observations. The "we" and "us" in his definitions can be seen as inclusive of all people and not just a particular group or individual. However, it's important to note that Spinoza's philosophical ideas are rooted in a subjective and individualistic worldview, so the "we" and "us" in his definitions may be influenced by his own perspective and experiences.

PoJ.fm: Does Spinoza's "we" and "us" only refer to human beings?

ChatGPT: Spinoza does not specify that the "we" and "us" in his definitions of good and evil refer only to human beings. It's possible that he intended his definitions to apply to all conscious beings, not just humans. However, Spinoza was primarily focused on human beings in his philosophical works and did not explicitly address the moral implications of his definitions for non-human entities. It's also possible that the "we" and "us" in his definitions are intended to refer only to human beings, as that is the focus of much of his philosophical

It's important to note that Spinoza's philosophy was ahead of its time in many ways and was highly influenced by the scientific and mathematical thinking of the 17th century. His definitions of good and evil may have been intended as a starting point for a broader philosophical inquiry, rather than a definitive statement on the nature of good and evil.

PoJ.fm: Some people have said that jazz is evil? What did they have in mind and what did they mean by evil?

ChatGPT: Some people have indeed labeled jazz as "evil," but the meaning and intention behind this label can vary greatly depending on the individual making the statement. The concept of "evil" is subjective and can refer to a wide range of negative connotations, such as moral wickedness, sinfulness, or the expression of negative emotions or experiences.

In the case of jazz, some people may view it as evil due to its association with various cultural and historical factors, such as its roots in African American culture, its association with blues and gospel music, or its association with certain historical events or cultural

Others may view jazz as evil due to its perceived association with immoral or sinful behavior, such as drug use or sexual promiscuity, that was sometimes associated with jazz culture in the past.

It's also possible that some people view jazz as evil due to personal taste or aversion, as jazz can be seen as challenging or unconventional when compared to more traditional forms of music.

In any case, it's important to remember that labeling a form of music as "evil" is a subjective and cultural interpretation that is open to debate and can change over time. The concept of good and evil is complex and multifaceted, and different individuals and communities may have differing views on what constitutes each.

PoJ.fm: Why did people think that jazz was evil? Who in particular said this and can you quote them and give sources of publication?

ChatGPT: I'm sorry, I do not have specific quotes or sources for individuals who have labeled jazz as "evil." The perception that jazz was evil was likely a product of a larger cultural and historical context, in which jazz was associated with certain aspects of African American culture, such as blues and gospel music, as well as with certain cultural movements and historical events, such as the rise of jazz in the 1920s and 1930s, which was associated with the rise of speakeasies and other venues for illegal activity.

However, it's also important to note that the perception of jazz as "evil" was likely influenced by broader cultural and societal factors, such as racism and prejudice against African American culture, as well as by religious and moral objections to certain aspects of jazz and its cultural associations.

Unfortunately, I do not have specific quotes or sources for individuals who have labeled jazz as "evil," but it is a well-known perception that has been documented in various historical and cultural studies of jazz and its cultural significance.

PoJ.fm: Could it be true that jazz is evil? How so?

ChatGPT: No, it is not true that jazz is evil. "Evil" is a subjective and culturally-determined concept that is open to interpretation and can change over time. The notion that jazz is evil is a cultural interpretation that is not supported by any objective or empirical evidence.

In fact, jazz has had a profound impact on music and culture and has been a source of artistic expression and creative innovation for many musicians and listeners. Jazz has also been associated with various social and cultural movements, such as the Civil Rights Movement, and has played a role in promoting greater cultural understanding and social progress.

It's important to recognize that labeling something as "evil" is a subjective and culturally-determined interpretation that can be influenced by various factors, such as personal taste, cultural background, and societal biases. In the case of jazz, labeling it as "evil" is not based on any objective or empirical evidence and is simply a cultural interpretation that is open to debate and subject to change.

PoJ.fm: What was it about the genre of jazz as a music that might make someone think that jazz is evil?

ChatGPT: There are several cultural and historical factors that may have contributed to the perception that jazz is "evil." One of the main factors was the association of jazz with African American culture, which was often marginalized and discriminated against in American society. The blues and gospel music that served as the roots of jazz were often seen as sinful or morally corrupt by those who held prejudiced views of African American culture.

Additionally, the rise of jazz in the 1920s and 1930s was associated with the rise of speakeasies and other venues for illegal activity during Prohibition, which reinforced negative stereotypes of jazz as being associated with immorality and sin.

In some cases, the perceived "sinfulness" of jazz was rooted in religious objections to certain aspects of the music, such as its association with sensual dance and sexuality.

Finally, some people may have viewed jazz as "evil" simply due to personal taste or aversion, as jazz can be seen as challenging or unconventional when compared to more traditional forms of music.

It's important to recognize that the perception that jazz is "evil" is a cultural interpretation that was influenced by various societal and historical factors and is not based on any objective or empirical evidence. The concept of "evil" is subjective and culturally-determined and can change over time.

PoJ.fm: How could the blues or gospel music be evil?

ChatGPT: The perception that blues or gospel music is evil is not based on any objective or empirical evidence, but rather is a culturally-determined interpretation that was influenced by various societal and historical factors.

In the case of blues and gospel music, the perception that these forms of music were "evil" was often rooted in prejudice and discrimination against African American culture, which was often marginalized and discriminated against in American society. Blues and gospel music were associated with African American culture and often seen as sinful or morally corrupt by those who held prejudiced views of this culture.

Additionally, the themes of blues and gospel music often touched on topics such as heartache, suffering, and sin, which may have been seen as "evil" by some who held strict moral or religious views.

It's important to recognize that the perception that blues or gospel music is "evil" is a cultural interpretation that was influenced by various societal and historical factors and is not based on any objective or empirical evidence. The concept of "evil" is subjective and culturally-determined and can change over time. The appreciation and significance of blues and gospel music has been widely recognized and celebrated in more recent years, and these forms of music are now widely recognized as important cultural and artistic expressions.

PoJ.fm: If a blues song promotes adultery in the lyrics would this make the song evil?

ChatGPT: Whether or not a blues song that promotes adultery in its lyrics could be considered "evil" depends on one's personal and cultural views on the topic of adultery and its depiction in music. The concept of "evil" is subjective and culturally-determined and can vary widely between individuals and cultures.

For some people, the depiction of adultery in music lyrics may be seen as morally wrong and therefore "evil." For others, it may be seen as a form of artistic expression that reflects the complexities and struggles of human relationships.

Ultimately, whether or not a blues song promoting adultery in its lyrics is considered "evil" will depend on one's personal and cultural views and values, as well as on the broader social and historical context in which the song is produced and consumed.

PoJ.fm: Is the promotion of adultery in a blues song immoral?

ChatGPT: Whether or not the promotion of adultery in a blues song is immoral depends on one's personal and cultural views on the morality of adultery. The concept of morality is subjective and culturally-determined, and can vary widely between individuals and cultures.

For some people, the promotion of adultery in a song may be seen as a violation of traditional moral values and norms, and therefore as immoral. For others, it may be seen as a form of artistic expression that reflects the complexities and struggles of human relationships, and therefore as morally neutral.

Ultimately, whether or not the promotion of adultery in a blues song is considered immoral will depend on one's personal and cultural views and values, as well as on the broader social and historical context in which the song is produced and consumed. It is important to recognize that these views and values can change over time and are influenced by cultural, social, and historical factors.

PoJ.fm: Would it be your view that what is morally correct is not independent of people's moral judgments?

ChatGPT: As an AI language model, I do not have personal views or beliefs. However, the general consensus among philosophers is that morality is not independent of people's moral judgments.

Morality is often considered to be a culturally-determined, subjective construct that is shaped by people's beliefs, values, and experiences. This means that what is considered to be morally correct can vary widely between individuals, cultures, and historical periods, and is not based on any objective or universal standards.

In this sense, people's moral judgments play a crucial role in shaping our understanding of what is considered morally right or wrong. They reflect the values, beliefs, and experiences of individuals and communities, and can change over time as cultural, social, and historical factors evolve.

However, it is also important to recognize that moral debates and disagreements are a natural part of the moral process and can lead to the development of new moral insights and understandings.

PoJ.fm: Suppose that the Saurus culture believes it is immoral to do action I, while the Okey culture holds that action I is not immoral? Could one culture be correct and the other completely wrong?

ChatGPT: The question of whether one culture's moral beliefs can be considered "correct" while another's are "completely wrong" is a complex and controversial issue in philosophy.

On one hand, some philosophers argue that morality is objective and universal, and that certain moral principles apply to all individuals and cultures. On this view, it is possible for one culture's moral beliefs to be considered "correct" while another's are "completely wrong."

On the other hand, many philosophers hold that morality is culturally-determined and subjective, and that what is considered to be morally right or wrong can vary widely between individuals, cultures, and historical periods. On this view, it is not possible to say that one culture's moral beliefs are "correct" and another's are "completely wrong."

Instead, it is suggested that different cultural moral beliefs should be seen as expressions of the values, beliefs, and experiences of those cultures, and that moral disagreements should be approached with respect and an open mind.

Ultimately, the question of whether one culture's moral beliefs can be considered "correct" while another's are "completely wrong" is a complex and multifaceted issue that continues to be debated by philosophers and scholars from many disciplines.

PoJ.fm: What do think you about these reactions to whether or not jazz is evil? The attribution of evil to jazz has numerous possible applications. Categories of what the adjective evil may apply to cover evil musicians, evil music, evil consequences, evil origins, evil aspects, or evil environments of jazz.

➢ Can each attribution of the evilness of jazz be shown false?

Assume evil means wickedness and wicked acts are ones willingly and knowingly perpetrated by bad people for immoral purposes.

➢ Are jazz musicians ever wicked while playing jazz?

No more than any other profession.

➢ What would it mean for the music itself to be evil?

Music cannot do anything intentionally therefore music itself cannot knowingly cause any immoral activities. Therefore, music cannot be wicked. Nevertheless, a critic may argue that the musicians can unintentionally or intentionally promote bad things with their music.

➢ Can music have evil consequences?

Music having evil consequences has to mean that when music is played it causes bad things to happen. What counts as bad things? Anything that is immoral would be bad, or cause unnecessary suffering.

➢ Does jazz music cause immoral things to occur?

It would seem that in the past over the first thirty years of jazz's existence that some people believed that listening to jazz caused immoral behavior.

ChatGPT: As an AI language model, I do not have personal opinions, but I can provide a neutral answer to your questions.

The attribution of evil to jazz, or any other form of art, is a subjective matter that depends on individual perspectives and cultural values. Some people may believe that jazz music, or certain aspects of it, is evil due to its association with certain social behaviors or cultural practices that they view as morally problematic. Others might see jazz as a form of self-expression or a means of exploring complex emotions and experiences, and not as a source of evil.

In general, it is difficult to make blanket statements about the morality of jazz or any other art form. Whether or not jazz is "evil" depends on the context and the individual's interpretation of the music, the musicians, and its associated cultural practices. However, the idea that music itself is capable of causing evil or wicked acts is generally considered flawed, as music does not have the ability to act with intention.

In conclusion, whether jazz or any other form of art is considered evil or not is largely a matter of personal interpretation and cultural values, and should be approached with an open mind and a respect for differing opinions. (bold not in original)

---

Internet Resources on Jazz and Evil

Faulkner, Anne Shaw. August 1921. "Does Jazz Put the Sin in Syncopation?." Ladies Home Journal: 16-34.

Johnson, Russell L. 2011. ‘“Disease is unrhythmical”: jazz, health, and disability in 1920s America.’ Health and History 13(2): 13-42.

"Jass: "Its musical value is nil, and its possibilities of harm are great," an editorial published in The (New Orleans) Times-Picayune, June 20, 1918.

---

NOTES