Immoralists hold that in at least some cases, moral fl aws in artworks can increase their aesthetic value. They deny what I call the valence constraint: the view that any effect that an artwork’s moral value has on its aesthetic merit must have the same valence. The immoralist offers three arguments against the valence constraint. In this paper I argue that these arguments fail, and that this failure reveals something deep and interesting about the relationship between cognitive and moral value. (...) In the fi nal section I offer a positive argument for the valence constraint. (shrink)

A widely accepted view in the philosophy of humour is that immoral jokes, like racist, sexist or homophobic jokes, can nevertheless be funny. What remains controversial is whether the moral flaws in these jokes can sometimes increase their humour. Moderate comic immoralism claims that it is possible, in at least some cases, for moral flaws to increase the humour of jokes. Critics of moderate comic immoralism deny that this ever occurs. They recognise that some jokes are both funny (...) and immoral, yet they claim that it is always something other than the moral flaws of jokes that contribute to their humour. In a series of recent papers, Aaron Smuts has pressed this objection to moderate comic immoralism. I argue that Smuts' attempt to narrow the range of cases in which humour can be attributed to immoral features is not sufficient to demonstrate that moderate comic immoralism is false. Specifically, I claim that Smuts cannot rule out a case for moderate comic immoralism grounded in the possibility that humour is normatively relative while the ethical status of jokes is not. (shrink)

The Ethical Question asks whether ethical values in artworks determine their aesthetic value and, if so, how. I argue that the question is ambiguous between a direct and an indirect reading. I show how the indirect reading is philosophically uninteresting because it has an obvious answer: a view called ‘immoralism’. I also show how most of the significant figures in the relevant literature address the indirect form of the question anyway—needlessly, if I am right. Finally, I consider whether some (...) version of the indirect question is more philosophically interesting, connecting it to the so-called ‘qua problem’. I attempt to give clarity to the discussion by applying work on the virtues and vices of explanations. (shrink)

Can a moral defect be an artistic virtue? Can it make a positive contribution to artistic value? Further, if this can happen on occasion, does this imply that moral value has no systematic connection to artistic value since every conceivable relation between them is possible? The idea that moral defects can sometimes be artistic virtues has received a fair number of defenders recently and so has the anti-theoretical view that there is no systematic relation between artistic and moral value. But (...) I think immoralism—as the first of these views is called—is mistaken and I will try to show that no good reason has been offered to believe it. If immoralism is wrong, the anti-theoretical view at best devolves into moderate moralism—the idea that moral defects sometimes, but not always, are responsible for artistic defects. CiteULike Connotea Del.icio.us What's this? (shrink)

This paper investigates whether an ethical flaw in an artwork can be an aesthetic merit. I explore two versions of immoralism from Eaton and Kieran. I will defend the immoralist claim that artworks containing rough heroes are ethically flawed. I will then argue that an indirect connection between an ethical flaw and aesthetic merit is sufficient for immoralism, so long as it is a necessary connection. On this understanding of immoralism, I will argue that Eaton and Kieran (...) are both successful in showing that an ethical flaw in an artwork can make it aesthetically better. (shrink)

According to immoralists, some artworks are better aesthetically in virtue of their immorality. A. W. Eaton recently offered a novel defence of this view, seeking to overcome shortcomings in previous accounts, thereby occasioning a reconsideration of immoralism. Yet, as I argue in this paper, Eaton’s attempt is unsuccessful, insofar as it consists partly of inadequately supported claims, and partly—and more interestingly, albeit paradoxically––of covert moralist assumptions that are, eo ipso, incompatible with immoralism. I then turn to a parallel (...) debate in ethics concerning the possibility of admirable immorality, suggesting that a consideration of the state of that debate further supports my argument against immoralism. I close by suggesting some strategies by which immoralists may offer a rejoinder, although I note that their prospects are rather dim, not least because available defences of immoralism and similar positions all seem to share the same flawed pattern. (shrink)

이 글의 목적은 니체의 도덕철학에 대한 비도덕주의적 해석을 비판적으로 검토하는 데 있다. 비도덕주의는 기본적으로 도덕에 반대하는 니체의 입장을 이해하려는 시도라고 볼 수 있다. 비도덕주의는 도덕을 부정적 가치나 극복해야만 하는 어떤 것이라고 주장한다. 하지만 비도덕주의는 니체가 도덕적 가치와는 다른 미적 가치, 또는 도덕과는 다른 윤리적 삶의 형식을 지지한다고 주장한다는 점에서 무도덕주의와 다르다. 한마디로 비도덕주의적 입장은 니체가 도덕은 거부하면서도 도덕과는 다른 대안적 시각을 지지한다고 주장한다. 그런데 이러한 가치 평가적 기획에는 메타윤리적 질문이 동반될 수밖에 없기 때문에, 비도덕주의가 지지하는 니체의 대안적 가치가 그가 거부하는 (...) 도덕적 가치에 비해 어떤 특권을 가질 수 있느냐 하는 의문이 제기된다. 이 글에서 필자는 비도덕주의가 니체의 대안적 시각의 규범적 정당화 문제를 해결하기 어렵다고 주장한다. 이러한 주장을 위해 필자는 먼저 그것이 제안하는 대안적 시각의 성격에 따라 비도덕주의를 ‘미학적’ 입장과 ‘윤리적’ 입장으로 나누어 살펴보고, 각 입장의 의의와 한계를 검토한다. 그 결과 니체에 대한 비도덕주의적 해석이 다원화된 새로운 문화에 살고 있는 우리에게 미적이고 윤리적인 대안적 실존의 가능성을 위한 토대를 마련해 주었음에도 불구하고, 니체의 도덕철학에 담긴 대안적 시각을 규범적으로 정당화하기 어렵다고 주장한다. 필자는 그 한계가 비도덕주의적 입장이 여전히 ‘좋은 것의 정초’라는 전통 윤리학의 기본가정에 매여 있기 때문이라고 본다. 즉 필자는 비도덕주의가 도덕적 가치 대신 니체의 대안적 가치를 정초하려고 한다는 점에서 기본적인 한계를 갖는다고 주장한다. 결론적으로 필자는 그 한계가 니체의 도덕철학을 비도덕주의가 아닌 도덕적 자연주의로 이해함으로써 보완될 수 있고, 그 전환의 의미는 니체의 도덕적 자연주의를 ‘정초의 윤리학’이 아닌 ‘금지의 윤리학’으로 파악함으로써 더 잘 해명될 수 있다고 주장한다. (shrink)

Argues that emotivism is compatible with cases where we seem to lack motivation to act according to our moral opinions.

According to comic moralism, moral flaws make comic works less funny or not funny at all. In contrast, comic immoralism is the view that moral flaws make comic works funnier. In this article, I argue for a moderate version of comic immoralism. I claim that, sometimes, comic works are funny partly in virtue of their moral flaws. I argue for this claim—and artistic immoralism more generally—by identifying artistically valuable moral flaws in relevant actions undertaken in the creation (...) of those works. Underlying this argument is the idea that such generative actions are partly constitutive of a work's identity, and, therefore, they may affect the ethical value of an artwork either positively or negatively, and they are the proper objects of ethical appraisal. (shrink)

Socrates and the Immoralists assembles an in-depth exploration of Socrates' argument for the just life, focusing specifically on the dialogues with the "immoralists" Polus, Callicles, and Thrasymachus, and illuminates the complexities of Socrates' thought, showing the interplay of the seemingly contradictory parts of Socrates' ambition, ultimately vindicating the overall coherence of his views.

Socrates and the Immoralists assembles an in-depth exploration of Socrates' argument for the just life, focusing specifically on the dialogues with the 'immoralists' Polus, Callicles, and Thrasymachus, and illuminates the complexities of Socrates' thought, showing the interplay of the seemingly contradictory parts of Socrates' ambition, ultimately vindicating the overall coherence of his views.

Strong comic immoralism maintains that every time a humorous demonstration (for example, a joke) involves a moral defect, it is enhanced aesthetically in virtue of having this moral defect. I want to show that strong comic immoralism is a coherent position, that it is possible to defend, and that there is, in fact, some reason to defend it. By doing this, my hope is that, moving forward, those who are interested in questions about the relationship between immorality and (...) the aesthetic value of jokes will take more seriously the objections that may be presented against their views by the strong comic immoralist, rather than claiming that “no one on this side of Satan” would be one. (shrink)

Nietzsche’s Immoralism begins a two-volume critical reconstruction of a socialist, democratic, and non-liberal Nietzschean politics. Nietzsche’s ideal of amor fati (love of fate) cannot be individually adopted because it is incompatible with deep freedom of agency. However, we can create its social conditions thanks to an under-appreciated aspect of his will-to-power psychology. We are driven not toward domination and conquest but toward resistance, contest, and play―a heightened feeling of power provoked by equal challenges that enables the non-instrumental affirmation of (...) suffering. This incompatibilist, anti-teleological psychology leads to Nietzsche’s distinctive immoralism: the abandonment of cultural means of human improvement for a historical materialist politics of breeding that produces future higher types through changes to our political order’s material conditions. Politics becomes first philosophy: it is not grounded in moral values but is instead the very source of their legitimacy. Moreover, despite Nietzsche’s professed aristocratism, his immoralism offers a stronger foundation for a renewed left, attacking conservative politics at its very root: the belief in moral order, authority, and responsibility. (shrink)

Many philosophers, past and present, have been loath to admit the possibility of a happy immoralist. Here is a historical case featured in the play and film A Man for All Seasons.

La Revue Philosophique (1908)Translated by Ali Nematollahy.

Nietzsche occasionally referred to his substantive ethical position as “immoralism,”1 but gave only a vague impression of just what this position amounts to. The strategy of this paper will be to determine how to be an immoralist by identifying what is affirmed in Nietzsche’s negation of morality. That is, I wish to consider aspects of the critique of morality not to show that morality is wrong – that is not my goal here – but to identify what Nietzsche’s substantive (...) ethical position is. I hope to show two things: that Nietzsche characterizes his immoralist position as an extension of rather than as an antithesis to a moralist one, and that Nietzsche offers a teleological position different from any of the familiar ones. (shrink)

The position of immoralism in analytic aesthetics and the philosophy of art holds that a work's moral defects can sometimes contribute to its artistic value. This position has suffered massive criticism in recent years. In support of immoralism, I present in this paper a new argument by examining immorality in the artistic genre of transgressive art. I argue that in the category of transgressive art, due to the nature of immorality that is a transgressive and liberating force against (...) morality's authority, being immoral can contribute directly to an artwork's artistic value by contributing to the realization of its artistic aim. (shrink)

Friedrich Nietzsche is one of the most popular and controversial philosophers of the last 150 years. Narcissistic, idiosyncratic, hyperbolic, irreverent--never has a philosopher been appropriated, deconstructed, and scrutinized by such a disparate array of groups, movements, and schools of thought. Adored by many for his passionate ideas and iconoclastic style, he is also vilified for his lack of rigor, apparent cruelty, and disdain for moral decency. In Living with Nietzsche, Solomon suggests that we read Nietzsche from a very different point (...) of view, as a provocative writer who means to transform the way we view our lives. This means taking Nietzsche personally. Rather than focus on the "true" Nietzsche or trying to determine "what Nietzsche really meant" by his seemingly random and often contradictory pronouncements about "the Big Questions" of philosophy, Solomon reminds us that Nietzsche is not a philosopher of abstract ideas but rather of the dazzling personal insight, the provocative challenge, the incisive personal probe. He does not try to reveal the eternal verities but he does powerfully affect his readers, goading them to see themselves in new and different ways. It is Nietzsche's compelling invitation to self-scrutiny that fascinates us, engages us, and guides us to a "rich inner life." Ultimately, Solomon argues, Nietzsche is an example as well as a promulgator of "passionate inwardness," a life distinguished by its rich passions, exquisite taste, and a sense of personal elegance and excellence. (shrink)

Discovering a deep unity in Nietzsche's work by exploring the structure and argumentative movement of a wide range of his books, Berkowitz shows that Nietzsche is a moral and political philosopher in the Socratic sense whose governing question is, "What is the best life?".

Peter Berkowitz’s book is about the “moral intention that gives birth to and governs Nietzsche’s thought”. Bracing his book by an introduction and conclusion, he divides it into two parts. The first comprises individual chapters on what Berkowitz calls Nietzsche’s “histories.” These are on the ethics of history, the ethics of art, the ethics of morality and the ethics of religion.

Friedrich Nietzsche is one of the most popular and controversial philosophers of the last 150 years; his popular appeal surpasses any philosopher who came after him. Yet as Robert Solomon shows, never has a thinker been more misunderstood. Solomon shows us that in fact the 'real' Nietzsche has tremendous value for the modern seeker and is not the dark figure some have made him. Solomon brings out Nietzsche's view of a successful inner life, the notion of 'passionate inwardness', deep emotions, (...) exquisite taste, and personla virtue, energy, vibrancy, and enthusiasm, overturning long-heldviews of the seminal thinker in the process. (shrink)