While I must avoid starving if I am to live to enjoy mountains/ice fields I
may, at some marginal limit, choose to avoid eating more than adequately
in order to enjoy the survival of the mountains/ice fields. At this point
aesthetics become part of the process of judgement. Unless of course one
accepts intrinsic value.
I believe the list discussed the place of aesthetics before I joined so
perhaps this is not a thread to follow. I am coming to the conclusion that
aesthetics is intrinsic value owned by the individual or more acurately
(imho) intrinsic value is personal aethetics projected into the outside
world. What might be the motivation for doing this? The fear of taking
responsibility? Dangerous psychologising!!!!! Or pehaps intrinsic value
de-couples aesthetics from the individual in order to disguise personal
preference as a universal. Either version seems to me dishonest (and
thereby unethical?) Should such a consideration of the psychological
motivations of the proponents of an idea fall within the realm of ethical
discussion? Since it is speculation perhaps not but if motivations are
legitimately considered when assessing the morality of actions should we
not extend this to the act of developing an ethical theory?
Returning to the ice field, if a sufficently large number of people like
myself consider their aesthetic enjoyment to be destroyed by ice minig
then I would argue that the ice/mining is an unethical insult. This I
suppose is a utiltarian argument with aesthetics considered as contributing
to the good. How many happy beer drinkers does it take to balance the
aesthetes? (if beer drinkers get happier as the evening wears on, do you
need fewer of them?)
regards
Paul k
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|