...Clearly people use them because it is easier to invoke the emotion than through e.g. meditation or whatever you are proposing.

This assumes of course that the human's world and the human's lifestyle is rational. I believe it is not. Humans deciding to do one thing over another does not necessarily mean that their choice is the best. Humans have collectively done some really stupid shit in the past...

Besides, this philosophy also applies to the other side. Is there an inherent correlation between what other people do (say, make noise that makes our ears hurt) and subjective pain felt?

No, not if "subjective pain felt" is defined as raw emotion. Emotion can be manipulated with perception.

If you have some sort of a meditation technique that can make people as elevated as they are made by a good song, can't this be used the same way to detach from pain, in which other people infringing on our rights or not respecting the live and let live fully becomes a moot point?

I think I am getting confused here, and misunderstanding you. If the pain you speak of in this excerpt were for instance defined as a human being hit with a baseball bat by another human, I would fallback to my argument of emotion existing exclusively in the mind and of relying on things outside of your head being redundant and unnecessary if you can simply remember how to rouse that emotion. In this scenario, I do not believe listening to music in 3D space could possibly be inherent good, so the girl should just stop listening to the music if another human can hear it, and it makes them unhappy.

Why do you turn an empirical question into a philosophical one?

I don't understand... Would you please rephrase this inquiry in layman's terms for me? But I answered the question as I did because I thought doing so was the best way. Sorry if this post sucks... it was difficult to compose.

By the way, it said I had to wait one minute to submit this post despite it taking me several minutes of typing to compose so I don't know if this will double post. I don't see a copy of this post on my userpage right now.

In your first scenario, I just cannot understand... perhaps it is my simply lacking certain mental faculties here that would render my mind normal, but I cannot sympathize with just not wanting certain food while not actually claiming that your consuming that certain food will be inherent evil, or that the certain food is in itself inherent evil. If the evil is not inherent then the argument is arbitrary, as the evil you claim is not a fundamental property of that construct as it exists naturally in this universe. If I don't want to eat something you could bet your ass that I would argue against my consuming that thing to the death...

In the second scenario that is one where one must compromise on what I believe to be the objective most rational method for the sake of accomplishing a side goal, which is different to simply forcing the world to tend to its most rational end. One might have to do that to simply continue living. That is a very cheap scenario to propose... the human's irrational world makes it so you cannot be rational(as I perceive it) without possibly throwing your life away. Composing this paragraph was difficult, and the first paragraph here was a second draft but I'd like to be clear that I am of the opinion that it is impossible to think something is arbitrary evil, rather than inherent evil... arbitrary evil does not make sense to me...