2004
Volume 46, Issue 2
  • ISSN: 0167-2444
  • E-ISSN: 2949-8651

Abstract

Abstract

Emotivism is the ethical view that moral judgements are mere expressions of emotions. On the internet we find a radical variety of this view, exported from the social media, where expressions of emotions are treated as truths about matters. One expresses an emotion that one has had; since one had it, this is a fact and cannot be doubted; hence what provoked it must have occurred, too. A claim to truth is hidden in this radical emotivism, which also entails that the appeals following from these emotions, too, are justified. Now, cancelling people on the basis of hear-say is problematic as such, particularly in the absence of legal support for the events that allegedly caused the emotions. Where art is concerned, however, what is really sacrificed is the autonomy of art as such. In this article I discuss the nature and importance of this autonomy, and show that radical emotivism is problematic in its own terms.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.5117/FEP.2025.2.003.GERW
2025-06-01
2025-09-15
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Anderson, J. C. en J. T.Dean, “Moderate Autonomism”, The British Journal of Aesthetics, Vol. 38, 1998, p. 150-66.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Aristoteles, Poëtica (red. PietGerbrandy en Casperde Jonge). Groningen: Historische Uitgeverij, 2017.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Carroll, N., “Moderate Moralism”, The British Journal of Aesthetics, Vol. 36, 1996, p. 223-38.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Davies, S. (ed.), Art and its Messages. Meaning, Morality and Society. Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1997.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Gaut, B., “The Ethical Criticism of Art”, in: Levinson, J. (ed.) Aesthetics and Ethics. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998, p. 182-203.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Gerwen, R. van, “Ethical Autonomism. The Work of Art as a Moral Agent”, Contemporary Aesthetics, Vol. 2 (2004a).
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Gerwen, R. van, “Pornografie en propaganda in de kunst,” in: Transgressie in de kunst. Jaarboek voor esthetica (red. BartVandenabeele en KoenVermeir). Budel: DAMON (2004b), p. 129-36.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Gerwen, R. van, “Hearing Musicians Making Music. A Critique of Roger Scruton’s notion of ‘Acousmatic Experience’”, Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism70 (2012) 1, p. 223-230.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Gerwen, R. van, “Artists’ Experiments and Our Issues with Them. Toward a Layered Definition of Art Practice”, (red. FabianDorsch en Dan-EugenRatiu), Proceedings of the European Society for Aesthetics, Vol. 6 (2014), p. 158-180.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Gerwen, R. van, Zullen we contact houden. Hoe we de geest uit ons wereldbeeld verwijderen. Utrecht: Klement, 2018.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Hume, D., A Treatise Of Human Nature. Mineola, New York: Dover Publication Inc., 2003 (1739).
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Kieran, M., “Art, morality and ethics: On the (im)moral character of art works and interrelations to artistic value”, Philosophy Compass1 (2006) 2, p. 129-143.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Levinson, J., “Defining Art Historically”, in: Music, Art & Metaphysics. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1990, p. 3-25.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Levinson, J. (ed.), Aesthetics and Ethics. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Savile, A., “Sentimentality”, in: The Test of Time. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1982, p. 236-50.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Wiggins, D., “A Sensible Subjectivism?”, in: Needs, Values, Truth: Essays in the Philosophy of Value. Oxford: Blackwell, 1987, p. 185-214.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Wollheim, R., “Criticism as Retrieval”, in: Art and its Objects. Second edition. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press, 1980, p. 185-204.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Wollheim, R., “Pictorial Style: Two Views”, in The Mind and its Depths. Cambridge (Mass.), London (England): Harvard University Press, 1993, p. 171-184.
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.5117/FEP.2025.2.003.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