Unformatted text preview:

4/10/14Objection 1:Artworks cannot be evaluated according to the moral attitudes they manifest because these attitudes are directed only towards fictional/imagined characters and events that could not be harmed or hurt.Gaut’s response: a.) Not all artworks are fiction.b.) We do and should morally praise/blame people even for what they merely imaginec.) Usually what we merely imagine (or desire) has important implications for the way we usually actObjection 2:The moral value of artworks is relevant, but, in contrast to ethicism(Gaut’s view) it adds to, rather than detracts from, the works aesthetic value.Gaut’s response:Morally bad characters ≠ morally bad attitudes ≠ work is morally badManifested attitudes:Only the attitudes that the work manifests indicates if it is morally good/bad. The manifested attitudes are the responses that the work prescribes in usMerited: To merit something = to deserve it Merited response= a response that is deserved, justified An appropriate response: a response that the audience is adopting a response that the audience has a good reason to adopt.Unmerited response:An inappropriate response, a response that the audience is not justified in having a response that the audience has a good reason not to adopt.A work that prescribes an unmerited response (i.e. a response that we have a reason not to adopt) always fails aesthetically/artistically – it fails to justify/deserve an aim that is internal to it as a work of artAn immoral response(eg admiration for Hitler) is always unmerited because we always have a reason not to adopt them=inappropriateMerited response= a response an artwork prescribes that we are justified in having/that we have a reason to haveUnmerited response= prescribes a response we are not justified in having, or have a reason NOT to adoptALL unmerited responses entail an aesthetic defect b/c works that prescribe unmerited responses fail to justify the response they aim to create in us. Just as a non-funny comedy has an internal aestetic defect, so every work that prescribes an immoral response has an aestetic defectThe reason is internal to the work itself, it fails us a reason to laugh. The reason not to adopt an immoralresponse is external to the workMerited Response Argument1.) All unmerited prescribed responses entail and aestethic defect (b/c the works that prescribe them fail to justify their intended aim)2.) All prescribed immoral responses are unmerited (b/c we never have a reason/are never justifiedin adopting these responses)Conclusion: To the extent that an artwork has a moral defect (i.e. to the extent that it prescribes an immoral response) it has an aesthetic defect. To the extent that an artwork has a moral merit (i.e. it prescribes a moral response) it has an aesthetic meritAnne Eaton “Robust Immoralism”Main argument: A certain kind of moral defect in art (the one embedded in the genre of the “Rough Hero”) is able to add to its aesthetic valueArtworks as proper objects of moral judgements:How can we attribute a moral judgement or a moral attitude to an artwork (an inanimate object)?Agrees with Gaut that it is not simply the content or representation of events/characters that makes it moral or immoral; it must take a certain attitude or adopt a certain perspective about the events/characters and prescribe a moral response by the audienceBy virtue of its “perspective”, which is the work’s evaluative attitude towards some of its represented elements. Such a perspectibe is manifested by the work’s way of directing its audience to adopt the same attitudes(282). In other words, a work is a proper object of moral judgement in terms of what Gaut calls “prescribed responses”Two ways in which moral judgement applies to artworks:Intrinsic- A moral judgement prompted by the work. In this case, a failure to respond to the work with the moral judgement or attitude it prescribes is a failure to understand the work Ex: Picasso’s Guernica and LolitaExtrinsic- a moral judgement that the work itself does not prescribe, ex: “Rape of Europa” does not take a moral stance on the rape of EuropaThe Relevant Kind of Moral Flaw in Art:Eaton’s argument focuses on the genre of the Rough Hero, a representation of a morally flawed protagonist, whose flaws are central to his character, and are not outweighed by redeeming virtues. In spite of the flaw, the character is nonetheless likeable, sympathetic, and/or charmingPrescribed Attitudes: Works belonging to the genre prescribe a double or mized response: on the one hand, they prescribe an intrinsic moral judgment (they prescribe that we morally condemn the protagonist). But on the other hand, they prescribe a sympathetic and liking engagement with him or her.Former moralist’s assessment of this genre:According to Eaton, moralists like Gaut hold that the works belonging to this genre are morally flawed, and to that extent, aesthetically defective. In contrast, Eaton argues that the moral flaws of this genre constitute an aesthetic achievement.Perhaps Gaut would claim that those works prescribe multilevel response such that a prescribed higher order level response ( the moral condemnation) encourages us to review, and perhaps criticize or challenge the lower level response (our sympathetic engagement with the hero)?Main Argument:The relevant kind of moral defect is aesthetic merit because of three reasons- The aesthetic achievement of the rough hero genre is based on the artistry (of the work) neededto overcome imaginative resistance, that is, our reluctance to sympathize and like morally condemnable characters- It elicits or merits a certain kind of response- our being captivated by the struggle between oour resistance and our sympathy. This captivation (sustained by our struggle and ambivalence) is an aesthetic achievement (for all artworks as artworks aim to be engaging and captivating)- It solves an interesting artistic problem (i.e. how to overcome our imaginative resistance). This isan aesthetically worthy problem to solve since its solution generates a compelling work.Quiz: - history only shows what happened, poetry shows what could happen, allows us to better understand how to act in the world. History is particular, only specific events, poetry is universal and can teach us much more about the world- Pro tanto means to the extent that, ethicism claims that an moral defect is to that extent an aesthetic defect, but being protant localizes this defect

View Full Document

AUBURN PHIL 1070 - Objection 1

Download Objection 1
Our administrator received your request to download this document. We will send you the file to your email shortly.
Loading Unlocking...

Join to view Objection 1 and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

We will never post anything without your permission.
Don't have an account?
Sign Up

Join to view Objection 1 2 2 and access 3M+ class-specific study document.


By creating an account you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms Of Use

Already a member?