When does being ‘apolitical’ become a political act? An ethicist on the Ed Sheeran saga

The recent controversy surrounding Ed Sheeran's decision to drop Macklemore from his Loop tour due to Macklemore's onstage calls to "free Palestine" has sparked a debate on what it truly means to be "apolitical." While Sheeran maintains an "apolitical" stance, referring to his history of avoiding public political statements, his decision to remove Macklemore appears to be influenced by the political interests of wealthy individuals, making it a political act.

Being apolitical does not equate to being neutral, particularly in cases involving significant injustice. Some argue that neutrality can perpetuate or even allow for injustice. In the entertainment industry, neutrality has been questioned in the context of wars, where neutrality can be argued to assist more people affected by conflict, unlike mercenary soldiers who are politically neutral and fight purely for wages.

While being apolitical may be defensible based on certain philosophical perspectives, its defensibility depends on the context. Epicurus argued for avoiding politics, aiming for tranquility of the soul, but this doesn't mean avoiding political issues altogether. Some philosophers, including Aristotle and Antonio Gramsci, believed humans are unavoidably political creatures, and certain issues demand a response from us.

In Sheeran's case, his decision to remove Macklemore from his tour takes place in a broader context where it seems influenced by wealthy individuals with well-stated political stances on Palestine. He allowed Macklemore's political views to be removed at the behest of another party acting in its own political interest, favoring one side over the other. This action through inaction is a statement on whose interests count and who has the power in the situation, making it a political act, regardless of Sheeran's intentions.