Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although it can not of course be denied that music and ethics have had strong ties historically (e.g. in the writings of Plato, Boethius, Nietzsche, Adorno), or that contemporary scholars who investigate music’s role in society cannot avoid touching upon its relation with ethical and moral issues (e.g. Hagberg, Cobussen/Nielsen, Kivy, Cusick), it is good to see this topic addressed once more in Jeff Warren’s new book Music and Ethical Responsibility. Warren is tutor of music and humanities at Quest University in Squamish, Canada, as well as a jazz bass player, and the connection between music and ethics has been a focus of his attention for the past fifteen years, culminating in this thorough study. Warren takes as his conceptual and theoretical framework a phenomenological approach, based primarily on the philosophy of Emmanuel Levinas, now and then aided by Maurice Merleau-Ponty’s phenomenology and Hans-Georg Gadamer’s hermeneutics. It is quite easy to trace Warren’s principal argument, as it is summarized in more or less the same words at least twenty times throughout the book. Music, musical meaning, or musical experience—Warren often alternates between these three concepts, thereby (implicitly) suggesting that, for him, they are (almost) equal—always involve encounters with others (composers, performers, audiences, scholars, etc., either in person at concerts, or through CDs, programme notes, musicological writings, etc.). These encounters demand ethical responsibilities to which we must respond (see e.g. pp. 1, 3, 12, 15, 22, 29, 67, 121, 123, 157, 161, 163, 170, 184, 186). Entirely in keeping with Levinas’s thinking, Warren states that these responsibilities cannot be summed up or reduced to abstract concepts and general rules, thereby establishing a distinction between ethics and morality; responsibilities must be negotiated anew each time they occur in specific situations. In short, music allows encounters with others, and this inevitably leads to an investigation of the role of music in relation to the ethical responsibilities that these encounters invoke.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".