哲学家们对道德美这一概念的关注自古希腊到19世纪从未停止。但分析美学家基于认知主义立场通常把“道德美”看成一个隐喻性表述或者认为这种表述犯了“范畴错误”。进入21世纪以来,新一代的分析美学家们开始重新关注道德美这一古老话题,并尝试在分析美学框架下建构道德美的合理性。为了证明道德品质的审美属性,学者们提供了三类论证,分别是贝里斯·高特提出的“间接论证”,帕诺斯·帕里斯提出的“基于形式与功能的道德美论证”,以及帕诺斯·帕里斯和瑞安·多兰提出的“最佳解释论证”。这些论证不仅在分析哲学框架下为道德和美学两大领域的关联性这一古老命题提供了支持,还进一步拓宽和丰富了美学研究的边界和可能性。
Abstract
Philosophers' enduring fascination with the concept of moral beauty has persisted from ancient Greece through the 19th century. However, analytic aestheticians, from a cognitivist standpoint, often regard “moral beauty” as a mere metaphorical expression or even dismiss it as a “categorical mistake.” The dawn of the 21st century witnessed a fresh wave of analytic aestheticians who embarked on a reevaluation of the age-old subject of moral beauty. They sought to establish its rationality within the framework of analytic aesthetics. To illustrate the aesthetic properties of moral qualities, scholars have presented three types of arguments: the “indirect argument” proposed by Berys Gaut, the “form and function-based argument for moral beauty” advanced by Panos Paris, and the “best explanation argument” jointly formulated by Panos Paris and Ryan Doran. These arguments not only lend support to the enduring proposition regarding the interplay between ethics and aesthetics within the domain of analytic philosophy but also significantly expand and enrich the horizons and possibilities of aesthetic inquiry.
关键词
分析美学 /
道德品质 /
形式 /
功能美 /
道德美
{{custom_keyword}} /
Key words
analytic aesthetics /
moral character /
form /
functional beauty /
moral beauty
{{custom_keyword}} /
{{custom_sec.title}}
{{custom_sec.title}}
{{custom_sec.content}}
参考文献
Albada, K.F., et al. “Interaction Appearance Theory: Changing Perceptions of Physical Attractiveness Through Social Interaction.” Communication Theory 12.1(2002):8-40.
Beardsley, Monroe. Aesthetics. London: Hackett, 1981.
Budd, Malcolm. Values of Art: Pictures, Poetry and Music. London: Penguin, 1995.
Burke, Edmund. A Philosophical Enquiry into the Origin of Our Ideas of the Sublime and Beautiful. Ed. A. Phillips. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990.
Carroll, Noël. The Philosophy of Art. London: Routledge, 1999.
———. “McGinn's Ethics, Evil, and Fiction.” Noûs 34.4(2000):648-656.
———. “Non-Perceptual Aesthetic Properties: Comments for James Shelley.” British Journal of Aesthetics 44.4(2004):413-423.
Doran, Ryan. “Moral Beauty, Inside and Out.” Australasian Journal of Philosophy 99.2(2021):396-414.
———. “Thick and Perceptual Moral Beauty.” Australasian Journal of Philosophy (21 Mar.2022).4 Sep.2023, 〈https://doi.org/10.1080/00048402.2022.2029921〉.
Gaut, Berys. Art, Emotion and Ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.
Gans, Carl. “Adaptation and the Form-Function Relation.” American Zoologist 28.2(1988):681-697.
Hume, David. An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals. London: Hackett, 1983.
Hutcheson, Francis. An Inquiry into the Original of Our Ideas of Beauty and Virtue in Two Treatises. London: Liberty Fund, 2004.
Irvin, Sherri. “Aesthetics of the Everyday.” A Companion to Aesthetics. Ed. Stephen Davies. London: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009.136-139.
———. “The Pervasiveness of Aesthetics in Ordinary Experience.” British Journal of Aesthetics 48.1(2008):29-44.
Kant, Immanuel. Critique of Judgement. Trans. Werner Pluhar. London: Hackett, 1987.
Kitcher, Philip. “Function and Design.” Midwest Studies in Philosophy 18.1(1998):379-397.
Kivy, Peter. “Fictional Form and Symphonic Structure: An Essay in Comparative Aesthetics.” Ratio 22.4(2009):421-438.
Kniffin, Kevin and David Wilson. “The Effects of Nonphysical Traits on the Perception of Physical Attractiveness: Three Naturalistic Studies.” Evolution and Human Behavior 25.2(2004):88-101.
Locke, John. John Locke: The Reasonableness of Christianity. Ed. John C. Higgins-Biddle. London: Clarendon, 2000.
McGinn, Colin. Ethics, Evil & Fiction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999.
Nisbett, Richard and Timothy Wilson. “The Halo Effect: Evidence for Unconscious Alteration of Judgments.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 35.4(1977):250-256.
Paris, Panos. “On Form, and the Possibility of Moral Beauty.” Metaphilosophy 49.5(2018):711-729.
———. “Functional Beauty, Pleasure, and Experience.” Australasian Journal of Philosophy 98.3(2020):516-530.
———. “The Empirical Case for Moral Beauty.” Australasian Journal of Philosophy 96.4(2018):642-656.
Parsons, Glenn, and Allen Carlson. Functional Beauty. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008.
Plato. The Collected Dialogues of Plato. Trans. Lane Cooper. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1961.
Plotinus. The Enneads. Trans. Stephen MacKenna. London: Faber & Faber, 1956.
Rudwick, M.J.S. “The Inference of Function from Structure in Fossils.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 15.57(1964):27-40.
Saito, Yuriko. Everyday Aesthetics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.
Sauchelli, Andrea. “Functional Beauty, Perception, and Aesthetic Judgements.” British Journal of Aesthetics 53.1(2013):41-53.
Scruton, Roger. Beauty. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.
Shaftesbury, Anthony. Characteristics of Men, Manners, Opinions, Times. Vol.1. London: Liberty Fund, 2001.
Shelley, James. “The Problem of Non-Perceptual Art.” British Journal of Aesthetics 43.4(2003):363-378.
Snow, Nancy. “Ethics, Evil, and Fiction.” International Philosophical Quarterly 38.3(1998):325-327.
Stecker, Robert. “Art, Emotion and Ethics, by Gaut, Berys.” Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 66.2(2008):199-201.
———. Aesthetics and the Philosophy of Art: An Introduction. New York: Rowman & Littlefield, 2011.
Walton, Kendall. “Categories of Art.” Philosophical Review 79.3(1970):334-367.
Zangwill, Nick. “Aesthetic/Sensory Dependence.” British Journal of Aesthetics 38.1(1998):66-81.
———. The Metaphysics of Beauty. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2001.
{{custom_fnGroup.title_cn}}
脚注
{{custom_fn.content}}
PDF(1306 KB)
({{custom_author.role_cn}}), {{javascript:window.custom_author_cn_index++;}}
