Is it morally acceptable to listen to artists who have been accused of evil acts?

By: Daniel Rondon

Just a month ago, 14-year-old Celeste Rivas Hernandez was found dead in the back of popular singer d4vd’s Tesla trunk. Fans have noticed that his songs, most famously "Decide," "One More Dance," and "Romantic Homicide," seem to be confessing something sinister. It’s further postulated that some leaked songs in 2023 mention Celeste by name and that he’s tattooed her name on his chest, along with saying that he planned to not only kill her, but also spill her blood all over his car seats. It’s cases like these that bring us to the question that’s plagued the music industry for centuries: is it morally acceptable to listen to music artists who either committed or have been accused of immoral crimes?

I answer that: The Angelic Doctor of the Church, St. Thomas Aquinas, using the thought of Aristotle, begins his response to the question by saying, “Art is nothing else but the right reason about certain works to be made.”1 He further states, “Yet the good of these things depends, not on man’s appetitive faculty being affected in this or that way, but on the goodness of his work done.”2 What is Aquinas getting at? He is essentially saying that the quality of a work of art, rather than man's own feelings about it, should ultimately determine its value. Aquinas then says, “Art, therefore, properly speaking, is an operative habit. And yet it has something in common with the speculative habits.”3 What now? Aquinas is saying that art is done by the guidance of reason because the artist is using his intellectual faculties to create the piece in question. Since it cannot aid in the morality of the artist while leading to the creation of art, it must be stated that art has to be separated from the artist.

To go further, St. Thomas Aquinas, in his commentary on Aristotle’s works, explains why art and moral virtue (prudence, to be specific) are distinct. For action is an operation within the agent, but making is an operation of passing into external matter to fashion something out of it. Habits are distinguished according to the object; following that, the habit is active by means of reason. As every art is constituted such that it's a habit concerned with making under the guidance of reason, it follows that art is the same as a habit. What do I mean when I say that art is the same as a habit? I’m saying that it’s practical, thus making art a species of intellectual habits, in which it’s practical. Hence, Aquinas writes,

“Art: when it comes to acting, the difference between experience and art disappears, because art operates with reference to singulars just as experience does… Though art and experience do not differ in the way in which they act, because both act on singular things, nevertheless, they differ in the effectiveness of their action. For men of experience act more effectively than those who have universal knowledge of an art but lack experience. This is because actions have to do with singular things, and all processes of generation belong to singular things. For universals are neither generated nor moved except accidentally, inasmuch as this belongs to singular things.”3

Thus, art is a species of practical intellectual habits, for it uses reason to guide the artist in his job of creating the piece. It shares something in common with speculative habits since both use reason to guide their intellect, wherein no emotions can corrupt the quality of the work or truth being presented. But art is not a speculative habit because it’s used in practical and operative ways (as stated above), while speculative habits aren’t practical; therefore, art is concerned with the operation and practicality of the intellect.

Furthermore, art is concerned with the creation or completion of the work. Artistic work is in the artist alone, as it's something extrinsic to the artifact. Art differs from prudence because, as we've noted, action and making are different. Aquinas puts it like this: “Art is restricted to giving directions to making, and not to action, which prudence directs.”4 Since prudence is concerned with things worthy of deliberation, and art is concerned with going from non-being to being. Alongside being additionally concerned with aesthetic purposes, it therefore follows that prudence is a distinct virtue from art. As reason guides the artist to make the piece, it is by prudence that leads his will to act in a morally compliant ordering of mankind.

To add to the d4vd case, the content of his music is concerning to listeners, as it implies that he has thoughts of committing immoral actions, thus a confession. But, as we've posited above, the work of the artist is different from the artist themselves, since action and making are different. We have to posit that it's moral to listen to d4vd's music, since he's using aesthetic purposes to convey a message and to connect with the audience. Though the lyrics and music videos are disturbing, it doesn't mean that his music is unethical. As it would blend moral virtue with an intellectual virtue, which is absurd, as art is done by the guidance of reason, it doesn't make one a better person. Only that of prudence and moral virtues can make someone a better person, meaning that people can enjoy his music without endorsing the lifestyle it promotes. This is something that humans already do with artists and their works. If we were to cancel him, it would lead to the cancellation of so many artists who have expressed controversial lyrics or content in their music or art.

Along with those who have a criminal record, this would mean that the majority of music and art would be wiped out. As you can see, this is a reductio ad absurdum because people want to cancel d4vd while not applying the same logic to everyone else, showing the absurdity and hypocrisy of their argument. So, we therefore need to make a distinction between the artist and the art itself, as we've already postulated above.

Finally, let’s analyze a more modern take on the whole matter. German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, one of the greatest to come from the 19th century, writes, "It is certainly best to separate an artist from his work so completely that he cannot be taken seriously as his work. He is, after all, merely the prerequisite for his work... in most cases, something that must be forgotten if the work itself is to be a source of enjoyment."5 Nietzsche agrees that the art and artist have to be separated, just like Aquinas, and he goes further to say that "in art, lying is consecrated, and the desire for deception has good conscience on its side."6 Thus, Nietzsche would posit that using immoral themes in art and music is necessary to capture the true meaning of art, indicating that d4vd is using such themes to convey moral dilemmas and for aesthetic purposes to gather an audience.

Now, an argument is never truly complete if you don’t consider the objections of those in the position opposite to my view presented here. Thus, let us look over the potential critiques of my position.

Objection 1: Due to the special nature of the case, alongside what he said in his songs, it still warrants that his music is immoral to listen to. For it would influence the youth to commit heinous crimes. Therefore, d4vd’s music is immoral to listen to.

Reply to objection 1: If we cancel d4vd because of his lyrics, it would still necessitate that a majority of rappers and artists have to be canceled because of their lyrics or art. Cancellation due to the violent nature of a song or work of art is absurd, as it would limit artists to creating works within the limits of society, thus stifling creativity and intellectual virtue. Furthermore, this case, though unique, is a biased take because if we look into artists like King Von and even Eminem, we see that they’ve said and done a lot of stuff that would get them canceled in today’s society. King Von murdered ten people and rapped about it in his music; Eminem has rapped about raping his mother and women, even to the point of killing his wife. Yet, we as a society still enjoy his music. Meaning that the objection leads back to the same problem that I’ve already discussed, as stated above. Therefore, this objection is insufficient.

Objection 2: Listening to d4vd is immoral because by hearing his music, we are supporting him financially, hence continuing the lifestyle he lives in. Which would only fuel more heinous crimes in the future; thus, we mustn’t listen to his music.

Reply to objection 2: Simply listening to the music doesn’t necessitate endorsement of the artist, as people have the choice of engaging in such activity. That’s normal for anyone to do, so the individual mustn’t be penalized unless they intend to support evil. If we take this objection seriously and take it to its logical conclusion, the prison system would be wrecked, as millions of people would need to be arrested for simply listening to music or buying art that they enjoy. Because if listening to artists who’ve done or have been accused of immoral actions would elicit an arrest, then millions of people need to be arrested. For example, Lil Wayne, with 48.8 million monthly followers, was arrested for possession of guns and drugs in New York City back in 2007.7 Likewise, Jay-Z, pulling in 38.7 million monthly listeners, was recently in a sexual lawsuit, alongside Diddy, from a woman who was 13 in the year 2000 when she claimed to have been raped by him. Though she dropped the charges,8 it shows how important intention is whenever we listen to such music artists. According to their logic, if we were to listen to such rappers, even if we liked the music and not their actions, then we would have to be arrested for supporting them financially. The problem would be that it ignores the intent of the viewer, which is vital in any ethical issue. As most people enjoy the music of such artists and do not cooperate in the depravity of the artists themselves, or that’s been portrayed. Though it will fund the artist, it doesn’t necessitate that they support his or her actions. Therefore, the objection collapses.

Objection 3: If people were to listen to music that contains violence, it would thus influence a multitude of young people to commit heinous crimes. Even if it’s for artistic purposes, people would take it very seriously, like how someone was jailed for using Eminem’s lyrics from “I’m Back” in reference to the Columbine shooting. With this in mind, we have to condemn d4vd as being immoral.

Reply to objection 3: Many people listen to songs that are violent or see paintings containing similar themes, yet they don’t do bad things. It’s because the art is different from the artist who produced the work. Though there are people who go on to do bad things because of such influence, the artist doesn’t intend for that to happen. Furthermore, the objection would lead to a fallacy of composition, as it focuses on the parts rather than the whole. It uses a minority of cases to make the argument. I mean, it generalizes the behavior of everyone; by only focusing on a small number of people, it actually makes the case. Ignoring the majority of people who simply listen to the music and, in fact, don’t commit immoral deeds. It doesn’t follow because the actions of a small group of people don’t dictate that everyone else who listens to it will follow the same path as them. Therefore, this objection logically fails.

Objection 4: Listening to his music alongside others with disturbing content would make people believe you endorse the artist. Even if you don’t financially support him. People would still think you endorse him due to the fact that you listen to his music. Therefore, his music is immoral to listen to.

Reply to objection 4: If the artist intends for the audience to endorse the depravity they speak about in the music, then the objection would be valid. But, as we’ve already discussed, most artists don’t intend for their listeners to really commit heinous crimes. Furthermore, the content in and of itself can be problematic, morally speaking, but the intent is just for the song itself. Also, most people don’t endorse such content and listen to it for the purpose of enjoying music, which is the whole point of the song. Its end goal is to engage with the audience aesthetically and emotionally. As we’ve noted, people don’t commit acts of violence; that’s really rare. It shows moral rectitude present in the individual and even critical engagement to a point. Thus, this objection is simply insufficient.

Objection 5: One may even argue that because of the content of a song or painting, it’s going to cause psychological harm to the individual.

Reply to objection 5: The problem is that it only works on an individual case; we’ve already addressed that lots of people listen to such music and aren’t affected by the content. The mental health of such individuals would therefore not be affected by the lyrics or art itself. Since it captivates the audience and causes them to enjoy the art, they want to listen to it more often. Because if the opposite were true, people would condemn such forms of art as dangerous to children, but the issue has not been raised. Finally, art is not dependent on the individual’s reaction to the work itself but on the rational ordering of mankind. If someone were to be emotionally disturbed because of the work, that’s an accidental cause, not a necessary one; therefore, the objection is not sufficient.

Ultimately, it is extremely important to separate the artist from his work, as not doing so would lead to practical and logical absurdities, as we’ve already shown throughout the entirety of this essay. With the thoughts of St. Thomas Aquinas, Aristotle, and Nietzsche, we have proven the validity and soundness of the position. Finally, whether you will listen to d4vd or not is up to you, but know that there’s nothing immoral in listening to artists like him!

References

1. Summa Theologiae, Prima Secundae, Question 57, Article 3, https://aquinas.cc/la/en/~ST.I-II.Q57.A3.SC

2. Ibid. Article 3, https://aquinas.cc/la/en/~ST.I-II.Q57.A3.SC

3. Commentary on Aristotle’s Metaphysics, Book I, Lecture 1, Numbers 20-21, https://aquinas.cc/la/en/~Metaph.Bk1.L1.n20

4. Commentary on Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, Book VI, Lecture 3, Number 1158, https://aquinas.cc/la/en/~Eth.Bk6.L3.n1158

5. On the Genealogy of Morals, Third Essay, Section 4

6. Ibid. Section 25

7. https://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/lil-wayne-arrested-possessing-gun-convicted-felon/story?id=74258804#:~:text=He%20was%20arrested%20in%20New,weapons%20possession%20in%20January%202008.

8. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/sexual-assault-lawsuit-against-jay-z-sean-diddy-combs-dropped-by-accuser-2025-0215/#:~:text=NEW%20YORK%2C%20Feb%2014%20(Reuters,appalling%20allegations%20have%20been%20dismissed.

10.13.2025