Moral values are determined by aesthetic values. Any action that is beautiful is morally good. The standard of beauty is decided on by true critics as outlined in David Hume's "Of the Standard of Taste."
Prove me wrong.
>>352012
David Hume's true critic is based on arbitrary man-made criteria.
Thus morals are based on man-made criteria?
>>352038
>David Hume's true critic is based on arbitrary man-made criteria.
The criteria are certainly man-made (as are all criteria since criteria are a human concept) but they are also certainly NOT arbitrary.
>>352012
>Moral values are determined by Aesthetic values
[citation needed]
>Any action that is beautiful is morally good
this relies on the above statement and thus [citation needed]
>The standard of beauty is decided on by true critics as outlined in "Of the Standard of Taste"
so in other words some "true critics" determined an objective standard of beauty because you said they did?
lmao I will never understand why people think their subjective opinions are universial facts
>>352012
Aristotle's functional argument evades Hume's is/ought distinction.
The enlightenment was a mistake. Even clever enlightenment thinkers are objectively wrong.
>>352059
>so in other words some "true critics" determined an objective standard of beauty because you said they did?
Someone hasn't read Hume.
>>352068
not an argument.
Subjective opinion (no matter how enlightened its holder) does not create objective fact. This is the fundamental oversight of your "proof".
>>352012
I find murder aesthetically appealing in a sexual way but that doesn't mean I think it is morally correct.
>>352085
It is indeed aesthetically pleasing to my perspective and what makes someone a true critic. Would the mere existance of a true critic not make this entirely subjective.
>>352085
>true critic
What's a true critic?
>>352091
>>352094
>what makes someone a true critic.
This is where reading Hume's essay comes in. To put it briefly, a true critic is free of certain obstructions.
Off the top of my head, here are a few qualities Hume outlines:
A true critic is:
Free from prejudice and bias
Well-versed on the subject so that they may compare many objects/instances
Practiced and has viewed the same object or instance many times
Basically, it's what you would expect from a good critic of anything.
>>352105
Oh, and another one I forgot to mention: able to perceive subtle details.
> David "muh backgammon" Hume
>>352105
What if two true critics come to differing opinions on a single action?
>>352147
That's inevitable, and isn't really a problem. It's natural that some (true) critics have certain preferences--for instance, one literature critic may prefer King Lear to Hamlet--they agree that both are aesthetically excellent, but one *prefers* the other.
So it is with morality. One true moral critic may think that, when considering The Trolley Problem, pushing the switch is morally correct, while the other thinks the other is the most morally correct. They are both morally good (or at least neutral), but each critic has a preference. Preferences among true critics don't nullify the aesthetic goodness among morality or aesthetics.
If two "true" critics totally disagree on the value of something, it's very likely one isn't actually a true critic.
>>352176
So there's no one morality for a given situation? What's the point?
>>352183
What do you mean "one morality?" And what "point" are you looking for? I'm giving an account of morality. There are certainly morally good and morally bad actions just as there are beautiful and not beautiful objects.
>>352188
What's the point of this account of morality if there can be conflicting 'good' courses of action for a given event; which can arise if two 'true' critics disagree as to moral goods. If we cannot come to a conclusion on a good (and assuming we seek to follow moral goods) why should we follow this system in lieu of another if we result in indecisiveness?
Also its been years since I read On the Standard of Taste for an Aesthetics class in college. I kind of want to give it another read now.
>>352196
Just as there are multiple shades and ways of being beautiful, there are many ways of being morally good. If you can save either your brother or your mother and the other dies, neither choice is evil. They conflict in the sense that you cannot do both, but they are both morally good, or morally neutral at worst.
>which can arise if two 'true' critics disagree as to moral goods.
Like I said with the King Lear/Hamlet example, true critics can have preferences, but they aren't disagreeing per se--they both agree that both works are aesthetically good. They each *prefer* the other.
A preference is not a statement of fact--part of what makes true critics true is that they can put aside prejudices that endears them to objects or turns them away from objects unfairly. Not all prejudices can be set aside--for example, old people may prefer King Lear while young people prefer Hamlet. True critics can acknowledge this preference and the fact that it arises from uncontrollable circumstances. Upon recognizing it, they declare it a preference and not a statement of fact.
So it is with morality--one critic would save his mother because he is young and has an obligation to his mother for raising him--another critic could be old and would save his brother because he has long since paid his debt to his mother.
>>352067
This. Also, plato was right about everything.
>>352012
Little girls look sexy as hell but somehow raping them is immoral :(
>>352176
In the case of the trolley problem I don't think either option is particularly beautiful.
>>352012
Sluts are generally beautiful.
>>352067
"The enlightenment was a mistake"
-Anonymous, 2015
>>352012
This just sounds like someone can't tell the difference between good and pretty desu.
>Moral values are determined by aesthetic values.
Makes no sense.
>Any action that is beautiful is morally good.
Is obviously false. We could find countless examples of beautiful actions that are morally wrong.
>The standard of beauty is decided on by true critics as outlined in David Hume's "Of the Standard of Taste."
Don't see why one guy's opinion should decide anything for people who aren't him.
I suggest you get a dictionary, OP.
aesthetics is not determined by ethics or logic since kant. this enabled nietzsche to argue for artist-philosophers beyond traditional metaphysics. now fuck off, pleb.
>>353168
Kant ia shit
>>353177
Kant may be a shit but he's better than Hume
>>353106
Shads too.
>>352012
Sauce on pic?
>>352012
What is a value? If I say "killing is generally bad", is it an expression of society's values, or of my inner self?
>>352012
you've given us a few premises but i'm not sure what you're conclusion is
1. moral values are determined by aesthetic values
2. any action that is beautiful is morally good
3. the standard of beauty is decided on by true critics as outlined in david hume's "of the standard of taste"
-------------------------------------------------------
∴ ?
>>352012
>Any action that is beautiful is morally good.
What about the unlawful (that is murderous) swordplay, in which someone with a straight sword, elegantly, gracefully, yet cold-bloodedly cuts someones jugular?
The spray of blood is artful, but would you consider it moral?
https://vimeo.com/112655231
Philosopher Roger Scruton presents a provocative essay on the importance of beauty in the arts and in our lives. In the 20th century, Scruton argues, art, architecture and music turned their backs on beauty, making a cult of ugliness and leading us into a spiritual desert. Using the thoughts of philosophers from Plato to Kant, and by talking to artists Michael Craig-Martin and Alexander Stoddart, Scruton analyses where art went wrong and presents his own impassioned case for restoring beauty to its traditional position at the center of our civilization
>"At anytime between the 1750 and 1930, If you had asked educated people to describe the aim of how poetry, art or music. They would have replied, Beauty.
>And if you had asked for the point of that? You would have learned that beauty is a value, as important as truth and goodness. Then in the 20th century, Beauty stopped being important. Art increasing aimed to disturb and to break moral taboos, it was not beauty but originality, however achieved and at whatever moral cost, that won the prizes.
>Not only has art made a cult of ugliness, architecture too has become soulless and sterile and it's not just our physical surroundings that have become ugly. Our language, our music and our manners are increasing raucous, Self-centered and offensive. As though beauty and good taste have no real place in our lives.
>One word is written large on all these ugly things and that word is ME. My profits, my desires, my pleasures and art has nothing to say in response to this, except "Yeah go for it".
>I think we are losing beauty and there is a danger that with it, we will lose the meaning of life."
