Is there such a thing as objectively good art?

[Adamoriens]

A few questions:

1. Are moral values and aesthetic values truly distinct categories?
2. If not, then isn't the moral realist committed to the existence of objective aesthetic values?

[Furrowed Brow]

A few questions:

• 1. Are moral values and aesthetic values truly distinct categories?

I believe morality is a word that as a species we have given a lot of rational consideration, and quite a lot of less well thought out consideration, but what really passes for morality is really an aesthetic response and not rational. This is important. It means that an objective set of rules does not define our actions. We do. We can’t pass the buck. We can’t point to some structure outside of us and say “this is why, I'd like it to be different, but those are the rules�. If called to account for our actions and words we have to admit that we are 100% their author. Sure rules are an aid, they provide a ready reckoner so that we don't have to give life so much thought. It means we can rely on principles that have already been shown to create a particular kind of society. But the rules have their limits. Those who fail or refuse to feel the notes made by the breeze slipping through the holes in their ethical code are ethically "deaf".

2. If not, then isn't the moral realist committed to the existence of objective aesthetic values?

"Objective aesthetic" is probably an oxymoron.

Some of us seem to share the same kind of responses others do not. We then try and work out the best set of rules for living together and call this endevour ethics. But without a sense of empathy "justice" is relative to the whims of the incumbent hegemony and the result is not pretty.

As I get older I see more and more clearly that talk of morality is fraught with confusions . Unlike Kant I'd say empathy is the key to what we think of as "morality". It does not really matter what systems of rules is preferred: utilitarianism, categorical imperative, 10 commandments etc. If empathy is not present someone is going to get tortured, and those without empathy will not mind. They may even feel fully justified.

Sorting out who we should empathise with more is the conundrum we try to rationalise, but really it comes down to an aesthetic that would have the world formed one way and not another. I think some folks’ aesthetic is more subtle and nuanced than others. I like these folk more. I'd say they were the more "moral".

[mgb]

There is a great deal of evil pouring through our tv screens parading as entertainment, so I'm sure there is a moral responsibility concerned with the creation of art.