Aesthetic relativism versus aesthetic objectivism - Essay Example

Aesthetic Relativism versus Aesthetic Objectivism. The notion of anesthetic was introduced in the eighteenth century, and the term aesthetic has now become used to designate things like, kind of object, kind of experience, kind of judgment as well as a kind of value. In general, theories of aesthetic have divided over queries specific to forms of designations: whether works of arts are necessarily aesthetic objects and how to square the purportedly basis of judgments of aesthetic with the fact that reason is given in support. In addition, what is the best way to capture the elusive difference between an aesthetic attitude as well as a practical one, or whether to define an aesthetic experience in relation to representational content, and how to comprehend the relation between aesthetic experience and value? Of late questions have arisen and have been likely to have a skeptical cast, as to whether the use of anesthetic is explicated without appeal to others, or whether the term answers any genuine philosophical purpose. The expressed skepticism by these questions did not hold until the end of the twentieth century. This fact prompted the question as to whether (a) notion of aesthetic is fundamentally problematic and has just become known, or (b) the notion is fine and has become cluttered enough for our imagination. Deciding between these possibilities needs a vantage from which to take concerning both early as well as late theories on aesthetic matters. The notion of aesthetic descends from the notion of taste. The reason why the notion of taste commanded a lot of philosophical attention in the eighteenth century was due to the theory of taste that had emerged of which was a corrective measure to the upraise of objectivism in regard to beauty. With this rise especially applied to virtue. While objectivism was against beauty, the judgment of beauty in the eighteenth century idea of taste was to be immediate, against self-absorption of virtue and held the desire of beauty to be disinterested (“Relativism vs. Objectivism” 1). In any given debate, arguments especially to do with relativism versus objectivism tend to separate leaving no in between. The Slippery slopes myth says that people who are on one side of any argument easily find it easier to blame people on another side of an argument. However, concerning the other side of slippery slopes can also be extreme. For example, the prevalent abortion debates that exist today. Furthermore, the relativism versus objectivism argument in philosophy is not altered either. Objectivists blame relativist of being subjectivists that look for ethical negativism by claiming that morality is up to the individualism; relativist blame objectivists of being absolutists of whom believe that all queries have a single right answer, regardless of culture or context. With such a debate, majority population holds the view of falling somewhere in between. Concerning relativism, this interpretation states that the moral principles are lawful, but vary in culture (conventionalism) or individuals (subjectivism). For instance, Ruth Benedict debates that different cultures have different principles, how can someone judge another person. Each of these moralities is equally legal. She goes on to argue from the angle of normality that each culture outlines what behavior is considered normal, in order to fit the majority’s behavior. The said majority population then describes normality as well as living by it, and the small minority is seen as abnormal. Ruth calls majority “socially convenient approved ways” and standard as “variations of good concepts.” Put differently, whatever social acceptable behavior is considered good and normal. While subjectivism is considered the extreme result of relativism. That being said we can say that morality is determined on an individual level and not at a social or even universal level. Therefore, moral principles that are viewed as valid are the ones a person believes in. Making all principles equal valid (“Relativism vs. Objectivism” 1). Arguments of these criticisms begin with the question of judgment. How would society or individuals judge the behavioral pattern of another especially when all behaviors are valid? For example, from historical reading and writings, didn’t those who had slaves consider slavery morally? Take the movie 12 years and a slave (2012), a movie based on a true happening that gives an account of how horrifying tales of slavery. Since slaveholders were the prevailing culture then, it would then be normal and hence a good behavior to own slaves. Therefore, if conventionalism weighs true, then slavery was a just act at that time when slavery was common, and only when treaties changed, did slavery become wrong. On the other hand, Nazism was considered morally right because the mathematical majority of the population simply agreed with it (of which eventually lead to the following extermination of millions of people). This can be further illustrated in the in the movie triumph of the will (1935), when the Nazism party congress spread propaganda leading to the death of millions of people. If conventionalism has truth, then the activities of those men are very correct because their society simply agreed with them. Louis Pojam further goes to inquire, how significant is a population? If two people got together to commit a crime, does that constitute to them forming a large group in society? Louis goes on to accuse conventionalism of moving towards subjectivism. He also asks whether social reformers are not abnormal and hence immoral. With these kinds of issues at conventionalist level, the subjective level is even more powerful. If subjectivism embraces truth, then any court system is rendered useless since the gauge by which man is judged is by his own standard. Consequently, all behavior according to subjectivist is considered correct. Hence, subjectivist cannot even criticize murders or even terrorism because the acts are viewed as acceptable, of which would be considered part of the individual’s values. Pojman in his essay argues that subjectivism reduces ethics to visual individual taste. For example, if I enjoy stealing, I will formulate my morality to fit my taste for theft. According to pojman, there is a contradiction presence between subjectivism and the notion of ethics because morality is the correct form of resolution for dealing with interpersonal conflicts, as well as the improvement of the human dilemma. In the eyes of a subjectivist, there is no correct as well as the need for morality. Concerning objectivism, this interpretation states that given moral principles are right for individuals as well as cultures. There are three category levels of objectivism, namely the fixed, universal, and absolute views. The fixed view states that principles are permanent and never change; the universal view is inclusive of the permanent view and adds that particular principles are not overrideable as well as true for any situation (“Relativism vs. Objectivism” 3). Theories held by such people answer the question, from where these principles originate. They originate in various ways from the essence of humanity, from reality of nature, from God, or from basic good that comes from consequential application. Pojman’s view of objectivism based on the assumption is that human nature is rather similar in essential admiration and has a collective set of interests as well as needs. He then goes on to define moral principles as functions of human needs set up by reason. Because Pojman does not view himself an absolutist, he does not think that values are non-dominate. However, he debates that certain principles are truthful across most cultures, for example, do not kill innocent beings, the relativism here is at the application level (who are the innocent?) these principles form the basis his core morality. Generally, certain aspects are left to the individual or society to decide. For example, the abortion debate: the debate is not about the rights of killing infants, it is about the beginning of life. Everyone might agree that killing of infants is wrong, but what creates a life and a baby? In conclusion, Pojman states that the fact that someone disagrees with a given principle, it does not cancel the said principle, it could be that the person is merely wrong. Despite what Pojman claims, it is also possible his claims can be objected. He claims cohesion of human nature, needs, as well as interests, but evidence to this is lacking. Benedict one of the anthropologists uses huge varieties of humanity to argue in favor of relativism while Pojman counter this with quotes meant to prove the huge similarities of human nature. Is this argument plausible? He admits that cultural variety has led to different applications, but where did they originate? Did man develop ethics, or it originated from the natural laws of applications? Pojman overlooks how the principles came to be, because he cares only for their exist. Mackie argues that there are non-existent. Mackie believes that statements of morality were not without meaning or emotion, they were merely claims about moral truth, although he did not trust in ethical reality and thought all moral claims were fabricated. Compared to Pojman, the two can be considered cognitivism in that they both see statements of ethics as factual or fabricated claims concerning ethical reality; Pojman is a pragmatist, and considers that ethical reality occurs in nature. However, Mackie thinks all ethical claims are false. This now brings us to a point where we have to evaluate both sides of the argument as being polar, total opposites of one another. Can we question this as being fair? Can someone really be in the middle? Pojman the objectivist embraces a few principles that are universal and their applications vary in society as well as culture, is more geared towards being in the middle. So, can we fairly say that stepping on either side of the quarrel can lead to the edge? No. it is not about assuming relativist are also subjectivist or even vice versa(“Relativism vs. Objectivism” 6). Wouldn’t it be so much simpler to pick sides of the argument? Yes. Just the way religion gives itself to fanaticism as well as fundamentalism by default. A split argument in religion will lead to divided opinions of those engaged in the argument. This now begs the questions, what then is the answer? At this point is when evaluation is needed on both sides as well as the sub-opinions in order to find and make sense of the whole reality, which then goes on to form the basis of philosophy, yet at the same time not dragging the debate constantly. In conclusion, it is suffice to say that relativism is similar to subjectivism; only that relativism applies to cultures not just individuals. It is also of the opinion that truth is relative in relation to cultures or societies. In addition, this also goes against the believers of universal, and ethical truth. Therefore, what a culture believes is considered correct. Right and wrong, good or bad varies depending on culture. There is no set standard, so things like abortion can be considered right in a particular culture while wrong in another culture, but both are correct according to their set standards. Therefore, as long as a culture is doing things according to their protocols of right and wrong, then judgment cannot be passed on them. This belief can be viewed as staying politically correct and drifting away from judgment. With this belief system, it is the majority rule concept that determines what is right. Furthermore, for a field of ethnicity to exist, objectivism must come into play with a view that they are universal as well as objectively moral principles. If we stuck to relativism alone then we would have no morals or social progression, and a lot of large scale problems would generally exist in society. They would be slavery, racism, genocides, to mention, but a few and no one would be held accountable. That being said, there is a need to understand that there are universal as well as effective moral principles that have to cut across all cultures. Because something feels right, does not necessarily mean that it is right. Good reasoning must be the driving force behind moral decision. There has to be thought process, discussion, reflection as well as some criticism between people and cultures in order to get to the root of what is really right as well as wrong.by This social and cultural progress is made over time. Work Cited n.p “Relativism vs. Objectivism.” Angelfire. 2001. Web. 16 December. 2010. Read More