Journal of Applied Philosophy 26 (1):71-87 (2009)
|Abstract||abstract The paper, using Spielberg's Munich as a test case, argues that the theory of ethicism – the view that a work of art's moral point of view affects the work's overall aesthetic evaluation – has serious restricted applicability owing to a number of reasons. Ethicism does not apply to works of art (1) that have no moral content; (2) that do have moral content but whose prescribed responses are non-moral; (3) whose prescribed moral responses do not ask the audience to accept or reject the moral claim but merely to contemplate or entertain it; (4) whose prescribed moral responses assert moral claims that are indeterminate; and (5) whose prescribed moral responses are embodied in equally plausible or true but incompatible interpretations.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Cass R. Sunstein (2005). On Moral Intuitions and Moral Heuristics: A Response. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28 (4):565-570.
James A. Ryan (1998). Moral Philosophy and Moral Psychology in Mencius. Asian Philosophy 8 (1):47 – 64.
James Harold (2011). Autonomism Reconsidered. British Journal of Aesthetics 51 (2):137-147.
P. S. Greenspan (1998). Moral Responses and Moral Theory: Socially-Based Externalist Ethics. Journal of Ethics 2 (2):103-122.
I. B. Beddoe (1981). Perceptions of Teachers About Moral Education in Trinidad and Tobago. Journal of Moral Education 10 (2):95-108.
Andrew Cullison (2010). Moral Perception. European Journal of Philosophy 18 (2):159-175.
James Harold (2006). On Judging the Moral Value of Narrative Artworks. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 64 (2):259–270.
Katherine Thomson (2002). Aesthetic and Ethical Mediocrity in Art. Philosophical Papers 31 (2):199-215.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads7 ( #133,637 of 550,802 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,425 of 550,802 )
How can I increase my downloads?