Esthiek: Kunst en morele afstemming | Amsterdam University Press Journals Online
2004
Volume 115 Number 4
  • ISSN: 0002-5275
  • E-ISSN: 2352-1244

Abstract

Abstract

Art can help us understand everyday moral deliberation. Better perhaps than ethics. People don’t just act randomly in moral situations nor do they argue internally about which ethical principle to follow before deciding what to do. We built our moral sensitivity whilst living our lives, adhering to aesthetic norms of interaction. Regular engagement with works of art educates our moral sensitivity.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.5117/ANTW2023.4.005.GERW
2023-11-01
2024-02-26
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aristoteles. (2017). Poëtica. Red. & vert. PietGerbrandy en Casperde Jonge. Groningen: Historische Uitgeverij.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Geertz, C. (1994). Thick Description: Toward an Interpretive Theory of Culture. In: Readings in the Philosophy of Social Science, edited by MichaelMartin and Lee C.McIntyre, 213–232. Cambridge, Mass: The MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Gerwen, R. van. (2001). On Exemplary Art as the Symbol of Morality. Making Sense of Kant’s Ideal of Beauty. In: Kant und die Berliner Aufklärung. Akten des IX. Kant Kongresses, edited by VolkerGerhardt, Rolf-PeterHorstmann, and RalphSchumacher, Volume 3, 553–62. Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Gerwen, R. van. (2004). Ethical Autonomism. The Work of Art as a Moral Agent. Contemporary Aesthetics, vol. 2.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Gerwen, R. van. (2011). Gesichter sprechen an. Eine philosophische Betrachtungsweise des Gesichtsausdrucks (und der kosmetischen Chirurgie). In: Im Dienste der Schönheit? Interdisziplinäre Perspektiven auf die Ästhetische Chirurgie, edited by AriannaFerrari, BeateLüttenberg, and Johann S.Ach, 189–204. Berlin: Lit Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Gerwen, R. van. (2014). Artists’ Experiments and Our Issues with Them – Toward a Layered Definition of Art Practice. Edited by Fabian Dorsch and Dan-Eugen Ratiu, Proceedings of the European Society for Aesthetics, Volume 6. 158-180.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Gerwen, R. van (2020). What They See is What We Get in Film: Reality Tells the Fiction. In: Aesthetic Investigations, Vol. 3, No. 2, 365-386.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Haddon, M. (2004). The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time. London, etc.: Vintage.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Kant, I. (1758). Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten. J. F. Hartknoch.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Kant, I. (1974). Kritik der Urteilskraft. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp (A: Berlin, Libau1790; B: Berlin, 1793).
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Nagel, T. (1979). Subjective and Objective. In: Mortal Questions, 196–214. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Williams, B. (1985). Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy. London: Fontana Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Wollheim, R. (1984). The Thread of Life. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.5117/ANTW2023.4.005.GERW
Loading
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error