Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 3 (2):137-167 (2000)
What does philosophy have to say about the argument that blasphemous art ought not to be publicly displayed? We examine four concepts of blasphemy: blasphemy as offence, attack on religion, attack on the sacred, attack on the blasphemer himself. We argue all four are needed to grasp this complex concept. We also argue for blasphemy as primarily a moral, not a religious concept. We then criticise four arguments for the public display of blasphemous art: it may be beautiful, provocative, devoutly intended, and is autonomous of religious concerns. Finally, we discuss the notions of blasphemy and blasphemous art as public offences. We conclude that the display of blasphemous art is a public, and not merely a private moral offence, and that there are respectable philosophical arguments for this conclusion.
|Keywords||art blasphemy freedom freedom of religion offence sacrilege|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Art and the City.Nicolas Whybrow - 2011 - Distributed in the U.S. And Canada Exclusively by Palgrave Macmillan.
Art and Religion in the Age of Denounced Master-Narratives.Vladimir Marchenkov - 2002 - Philosophy in the Contemporary World 9 (1):71-82.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads29 ( #178,902 of 2,178,148 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #316,504 of 2,178,148 )
How can I increase my downloads?