Seperating the Wheat from the Chaff

[wgrimm]

Originally Posted by BlackVoid

Just forget about it. There was never trustworthy reviewing and there is none on the web and there never will be. It is all about personal taste / preference.

Here's a book you might like- Junk Fiction: America's Obsession with Bestsellers <G>. I have rerad less than 100 pages, but the author seems to be a decent critic and is making his case well.

It definitely is NOT just about personal taste/preference. I think we can examine a work of art, whether it be a bookm, painting, or whatever- and determine if it is good or not, based on rational standards. This idea that the only judgement that can be passed on art is personal preference is wrong.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by wgrimm

Well, let me ask you a question. The ancient Mayans believed that it was good to sacrifice young virgins- and gthey sacrificed a good many of them. Most of the Mayans, it appears, believed that human sacrifice was a good thing- it was the cultural norm.

So- is human sacrifice good? Were the Mayans doing something that we can all rationally agree was a good thing?

If 20 million readers think that Harold Robbins is a great writer, should we all agree that the ghastliness that he produces is good literature?

"We" is a different culture than the Mayans the cultural norms may be different.

If "we" is the majority then yes, "we" agree that he is a great writer. But in that comparison you have also equated great writer = good literature.
Not sure that is necessarily the case.

[wgrimm]

Originally Posted by kennyc

"We" is a different culture than the Mayans the cultural norms may be different.

If "we" is the majority then yes, "we" agree that he is a great writer. But in that comparison you have also equated great writer = good literature.
Not sure that is necessarily the case.

So, are you saying that it was perfectly acceptable for the Mayans to sacrifice human beings? What if most of the people in our society decided that it was okay to keep black people as slaves? Would that be okay, because it is a "norm?" Ethically, would slavery be right and proper?

The Nazis thought that their institutionalized racism and murder was ethically proper- because they believed in it properness, was it truly proper? Racism was a cultural norm in that society- so it was okay?

[kennyc]

You clearly don't understand that anything a majority of a group decides is the norm for that group.

For those cultures, those groups, at those times, those things were true, they were the norms for those groups.

There is no such thing as absolute, objective ethics only what a particular group at a particular time decides by consensus.

[wgrimm]

Originally Posted by kennyc

You clearly don't understand that anything a majority of a group decides is the norm for that group.

For those cultures, those groups, at those times, those things were true, they were the norms for those groups.

There is no such thing as absolute, objective ethics only what a particular group at a particular time decides by consensus.

I clearly DO understand what a norm is! My point- just becaause it is a norm doesn't make it right. A hundred years ago, the NY Times referred to black people as "darkies." In 'Gone with the Wind,' Clark Gable called a black girl a "silly darkie." Both cases were okay in that the societal norm was followed. A hundred years before that, it was acceptable to take a black slave and tie him to a tree and whip him if he didn't do the work you wanted. In this case too, no norms were violated. But ethically, was it RIGHT?

And this is where you are wrong- there are indeed objective ethics, moral right and wrong. Ethics by consensus is idiotic. And there are objective standards of aesthetics; just because "everyone thinks it is a good book" doesn't make it a good book.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by wgrimm

...

And this is where you are wrong- there are indeed objective ethics, moral right and wrong. Ethics by consensus is idiotic. And there are objective standards of aesthetics; just because "everyone thinks it is a good book" doesn't make it a good book.

I'm NOT wrong. This has been argued countlessly and endlessly by philosophers and laymen alike. There is no way to prove that objective ethics/standards/norms/beliefs exist.

This is nothing more than your belief, it is not mine.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by kennyc

I'm NOT wrong. This has been argued countlessly and endlessly by philosophers and laymen alike. There is no way to prove that objective ethics/standards/norms/beliefs exist.

This is nothing more than your belief, it is not mine.

I kind of agree with you conclusion but this argument is broken. That something is not provable does not imply that it is not correct. You are confusing knowledge about things and the things themselves.

Also conclusions about moral philosophy can not be used directly on aesthetics.

[wgrimm]

Originally Posted by kennyc

I'm NOT wrong. This has been argued countlessly and endlessly by philosophers and laymen alike. There is no way to prove that objective ethics/standards/norms/beliefs exist.

This is nothing more than your belief, it is not mine.

If this is what you truly believe, ponder this- let's assume that we live in a society that thinks slavery is okay- that is our "norm.": Are you telling me that you would have no problem keeping slaves? That if one of those slaves got out of line, you would whip him? Or what if you lived in Nazi Germany- would you have bveen there helping round up Jews for transport to the concentration camps?

Cultural relativity has indeed been argued about, and the relativists lost. The position that there can be no objective standards in aesthetics leads to equally silly pronouncements about the arts as the belief in cultural relativity would lkead one to cvlaim that "It was okay for the Mayans to sacrifice virgins" and "It was okay for the Nazis to exterminate Jews". I mean hey- it was a norm so it was right, eh?

[kennyc]

Now you are confusing individual beliefs/ethics/actions with societal norms/ethics/beliefs. This is exactly what I meant by you don't understand a societal norm or consensus. Just because it is a norm or consensus does not mean that every individual agrees with it.

Again the second part of your statement is nothing more than your belief that it is silly. To you it is, to that culture it was the norm.

[wgrimm]

Originally Posted by tompe

Also conclusions about moral philosophy can not be used directly on aesthetics.

I don't know why not. In both cases, we are passing judgement. We are using standards to support our conclusions.

If relativity is true, aesthetics doesn't exist- everyone's "opinion" is equally valid. The nimrod who flips burgers for Mickey D has an opinion about a particular piece of music, and it is every bit as valid as the opinion of a music historian or classically trained pianist.

Heaven forbid that we would dare to elevate the works of Shakespeare over those of Danielle Steele or Harold Robbins. Let's forget about supporting museums and art galleries, because nothing has any intrinsic merit. While we're at it, let's toss out all of the works by Raphael and Manet and break up all of those old Greek statues- most people in our society would agree that Norman Rockwell is a much better artist (his stuff looks better- more "realistic").

[wgrimm]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Again the second part of your statement is nothing more than your belief that it is silly. To you it is, to that culture it was the norm.

These things may have been the norm, but they were WRONG. Take the example of the Nazis and their institutionalized racism- the question that I posed was not whether it was a norm- but whether it was Right or Wrong, good or evil. In the case of the Nazis, their norms were definitely evil.

As with aesthetics- we are not asking whether or not people like something, but whether that somnething is good or bad. Just because someone likes something has no bearing on whether that something is good or bad.

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by wgrimm

If this is what you truly believe, ponder this- let's assume that we live in a society that thinks slavery is okay-

Don't want to drag the thread off topic - but, just to say, I do live in a society that regards slavery as ok.

Thank you, carry on...

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by wgrimm

These things may have been the norm, but they were WRONG. ..

That this is WRONG is your opinion, your belief, not necessarily the belief of any given society or individual.

[wgrimm]

Originally Posted by kennyc

That this is WRONG is your opinion, your belief, not necessarily the belief of any given society or individual.

Oh, okay- so you're telling me that the Nazi Death Camps were not EVIL and WRONG- this is just my opinion? That we can't rationally judge these beasts because everything is relative?

And Norman Rockwell is a better painter than Picasso because more people like Rockwell's paintings than Picasso's. And it's okay to sacrifice virgins, and it's okay to keep slaves- all depends on your opinion! There is nothing intrinsically wrong with any of these acts, and nothing intrinsically wrong with marching people off to die in the gas chambers- if they are Jews or gypsies.......

Does something seem not quite right with these conclusions?

[kennyc]

Since this has been round this loop three times already, I will not comment further on it. If you'd like to get back to the topic of the thread -- books and book reviews -- I'm all ears.