Relativism, art, ethics
November 25th 2008 00:54
You walk out of a cinema, and I liked the movie, and you didn't.
I can shrug and say horses for courses, each to her own, and there's no accounting for taste. End of the matter, full stop. Let's talk about something else.
But it's normally not the end of the matter. Because I might try to persuade you to change your mind.
How do I do this...? Well, here's three common ways.
1. I could bully you, trick you, use rhetoric on you, etc. I could say, "Stanley Kubrick loved that movie, and so do 95% of audiences". And maybe that'll convince you, because you don't like disagreeing with an authority like Kubrick, or you can't cope with the peer pressure of 95% of audiences.
2. I could try to express what I liked about the movie, and maybe you'll "learn to appreciate it", or maybe you'll be led to seeing something new and worthwhile. Compare the way that a piece of art can look much more skilful once you know what the artist was aiming at. Or the way that any piece of criticism (music, literary, film, whatever) can make you conscious of new ways to experience.
3. When you say "I dislike", often you're making further claims: for instance, "I dislike this because it's a bad movie" or "I dislike this, and I don't think anyone else will like it or should see it."
"I dislike" by itself is kind of a brute fact, like "I am hungry", "My leg hurts", "My finger itches". You're making an observation. There's always the possibility that even self-observations are fallible or misuse language, but most of the time we simply have to accept them.
However, "This is a bad movie" or "No one should see this" goes beyond self-observations -- they appeal to some other court of authority, perhaps even to empirical evidence, and they lend themselves to asking and giving reasons. I could follow up your statement by inquiring why you don't like it, and there'd be a discussion to be had, whereas it would be strange for me to ask you why you think you're hungry.
Perhaps you'd comment on the camerawork or the acting, and I could ask you for examples of good camerawork and acting, what the basic evaluative principles are, what method you used to apply them in this case, etc, etc.
At the end of such a discussion, we might wind up discovering we have fundamentally different aesthetic criteria, and there's nothing else to be said. Or we might find some point of connection.
The point is that I can have this sort of conversation, and it can be worth having, and I don't have to believe in universal aesthetic principles. Art talk doesn't have to be like science or maths -- there doesn't have to be a fact of the matter that we're arguing over.
So in the case of ethics... We live in a society where there's multiple developed moralities. Not only religious systems (Christianity, Islam) and philosophical systems (utilitarianism, Kantiansm), but also knightly honour codes, aristocratic values, working-class values...
At the end of the day, these systems might differ fundamentally: a Confucian might value tradition, whereas a liberal might see the past as constraining; a Puritan might value thrift, while an aristocrat might think acts of excess are glorious.
An ethical relativist might believe that there is no fact of the matter to make any system more "correct" than any other. But what follows? An aesthetic relativist believes there is no fact of the matter about what makes a movie good or bad, but it doesn't follow that you ought be indifferent to what movies you watch. And it doesn't follow that you ought think that all ethical talk, including your own, is pointless. People who disagree can still discuss, give and ask reasons, find points of connnection, cause each other to reflect, and potentially change each other's minds.
A quote from Ronald Dworkin's Law's Empire (1986):
I can shrug and say horses for courses, each to her own, and there's no accounting for taste. End of the matter, full stop. Let's talk about something else.
But it's normally not the end of the matter. Because I might try to persuade you to change your mind.
How do I do this...? Well, here's three common ways.
1. I could bully you, trick you, use rhetoric on you, etc. I could say, "Stanley Kubrick loved that movie, and so do 95% of audiences". And maybe that'll convince you, because you don't like disagreeing with an authority like Kubrick, or you can't cope with the peer pressure of 95% of audiences.
2. I could try to express what I liked about the movie, and maybe you'll "learn to appreciate it", or maybe you'll be led to seeing something new and worthwhile. Compare the way that a piece of art can look much more skilful once you know what the artist was aiming at. Or the way that any piece of criticism (music, literary, film, whatever) can make you conscious of new ways to experience.
3. When you say "I dislike", often you're making further claims: for instance, "I dislike this because it's a bad movie" or "I dislike this, and I don't think anyone else will like it or should see it."
"I dislike" by itself is kind of a brute fact, like "I am hungry", "My leg hurts", "My finger itches". You're making an observation. There's always the possibility that even self-observations are fallible or misuse language, but most of the time we simply have to accept them.
However, "This is a bad movie" or "No one should see this" goes beyond self-observations -- they appeal to some other court of authority, perhaps even to empirical evidence, and they lend themselves to asking and giving reasons. I could follow up your statement by inquiring why you don't like it, and there'd be a discussion to be had, whereas it would be strange for me to ask you why you think you're hungry.
Perhaps you'd comment on the camerawork or the acting, and I could ask you for examples of good camerawork and acting, what the basic evaluative principles are, what method you used to apply them in this case, etc, etc.
At the end of such a discussion, we might wind up discovering we have fundamentally different aesthetic criteria, and there's nothing else to be said. Or we might find some point of connection.
***
The point is that I can have this sort of conversation, and it can be worth having, and I don't have to believe in universal aesthetic principles. Art talk doesn't have to be like science or maths -- there doesn't have to be a fact of the matter that we're arguing over.
So in the case of ethics... We live in a society where there's multiple developed moralities. Not only religious systems (Christianity, Islam) and philosophical systems (utilitarianism, Kantiansm), but also knightly honour codes, aristocratic values, working-class values...
At the end of the day, these systems might differ fundamentally: a Confucian might value tradition, whereas a liberal might see the past as constraining; a Puritan might value thrift, while an aristocrat might think acts of excess are glorious.
An ethical relativist might believe that there is no fact of the matter to make any system more "correct" than any other. But what follows? An aesthetic relativist believes there is no fact of the matter about what makes a movie good or bad, but it doesn't follow that you ought be indifferent to what movies you watch. And it doesn't follow that you ought think that all ethical talk, including your own, is pointless. People who disagree can still discuss, give and ask reasons, find points of connnection, cause each other to reflect, and potentially change each other's minds.
A quote from Ronald Dworkin's Law's Empire (1986):
| I shall offer arguments about what makes one interpretation of a social practice better than another, and about what account of law provides the most satisfactory interpretation of that complex and crucial practice. These arguments will not -- because they cannot -- be demonstrations. They invite disagreement, and though it will not be wrong to reply, "But that's only your opinion," neither will it be helpful. You must then ask yourself whether, after reflection, it is your opinion as well. |
Notes
-- Wednesday 26 November 2008: In the post I talked about "discovering we have fundamentally different aesthetic criteria, and there's nothing else to be said". But perhaps, if I were a good holist, I wouldn't believe in foundational beliefs. On this view, there is always something more to be said.
| 75 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
subscribe to this blog
Comment by Anonymous
Comment by Kris
Quotable Quips
Banana and Mango
Btw, what is an opinion?