On the Ethics of Imagination and Ethical-Aesthetic Value Interaction in Fiction

IF 0.5 3区 哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY Ergo-An Open Access Journal of Philosophy Pub Date : 2023-07-17 DOI:10.3998/ergo.3119
Adriana Clavel-Vázquez
{"title":"On the Ethics of Imagination and Ethical-Aesthetic Value Interaction in Fiction","authors":"Adriana Clavel-Vázquez","doi":"10.3998/ergo.3119","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Advocates of interactionism in the ethical criticism of art argue that ethical value impacts aesthetic value. The debate is concerned with “the intrinsic question”: the question of whether ethical flaws/merits in artworks’ manifested attitudes affect their aesthetic value (Gaut 2007: 9). This paper argues that the assumption that artworks have intrinsic ethical value is problematic at least in regards to a significant subset of works: fictional artworks. I argue that, insofar as their ethical value emerges only from attitudes attributable to actual agents, fictional artworks only have extrinsic ethical value. I show that what is at stake for interactionism is whether ethical judgements concerning artists’ attitudes in a context, rather than manifested attitudes, are ever aesthetically relevant. I conclude that, without buying into extreme actual intentionalism, a still controversial theory of interpretation that ties artworks’ meaning to actual artists, interactionism fails to show that ethical flaws/merits are aesthetic flaws/merits.","PeriodicalId":51882,"journal":{"name":"Ergo-An Open Access Journal of Philosophy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ergo-An Open Access Journal of Philosophy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3998/ergo.3119","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Advocates of interactionism in the ethical criticism of art argue that ethical value impacts aesthetic value. The debate is concerned with “the intrinsic question”: the question of whether ethical flaws/merits in artworks’ manifested attitudes affect their aesthetic value (Gaut 2007: 9). This paper argues that the assumption that artworks have intrinsic ethical value is problematic at least in regards to a significant subset of works: fictional artworks. I argue that, insofar as their ethical value emerges only from attitudes attributable to actual agents, fictional artworks only have extrinsic ethical value. I show that what is at stake for interactionism is whether ethical judgements concerning artists’ attitudes in a context, rather than manifested attitudes, are ever aesthetically relevant. I conclude that, without buying into extreme actual intentionalism, a still controversial theory of interpretation that ties artworks’ meaning to actual artists, interactionism fails to show that ethical flaws/merits are aesthetic flaws/merits.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
论小说中的想象伦理与伦理审美价值互动
艺术伦理批评中互动主义的提倡者认为,伦理价值影响审美价值。争论涉及“内在问题”:艺术作品表现出的态度中的道德缺陷/优点是否会影响它们的审美价值(Gaut 2007: 9)。本文认为,艺术作品具有内在道德价值的假设是有问题的,至少在作品的一个重要子集:虚构艺术作品方面是如此。我认为,只要它们的道德价值只来自于可归因于实际代理人的态度,虚构的艺术品就只具有外在的道德价值。我认为,互动主义的利害攸关之处在于,关于艺术家在某种背景下的态度的道德判断,是否与美学相关,而不是表现出的态度。我的结论是,在不接受极端的实际意图主义(一种仍有争议的解释理论,将艺术品的意义与实际艺术家联系起来)的情况下,互动主义未能表明道德缺陷/优点就是美学缺陷/优点。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
26 weeks
期刊最新文献
The Vagaries of References Advice for Analytic Naturalists Against Purity Hypocrisy in Politics Nature, Consciousness, and Metaphysics in Merleau-Ponty’s Early Thought
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1