Iris Spoor

Debates over the metaphysical status of aesthetic properties have persisted for decades in Aesthetics. One question that consistently arises in any discussion of aesthetic properties is whether they are fundamentally evaluative or descriptive in character. Aesthetic properties are often treated as parallel to moral properties which means many philosophers take it for granted that aesthetic properties are fundamentally evaluative. There are some philosophers, like Frank Sibley and Jerrold Levinson, who take the road less traveled and treat aesthetic properties as primarily descriptive in character. In this paper, I outline Levinson’s intriguing view that the evaluative aspect of an aesthetic property can be canceled leaving us with the descriptive essence of the property. I refer to this as the separability thesis. It contends that evaluative reactions to aesthetic properties can be separated from the objective, perceptual content of an aesthetic experience thereby leaving us with the non-evaluative core of the property. I go on to defend the separability thesis from a powerful challenge developed by Rafael De Clercq. Ultimately, I contend that while De Clercq’s argument is clever and insightful it fails to undermine the separability thesis.

In “Compliance, Complicity, and the Nature of Nonideal Conditions” (2003), Tamar Schapiro suggests a framework that deontological theories might use to mitigate the stringency of the moral law in certain cases. This framework depends on a crucial distinction between two forms of non-compliance: transgression and subversion. Schapiro considers several possibilities for cases of subversive non-compliance including an intriguing fictional example from L.A. Confidential2003, p. 347) and Kant’s infamous murder at the door scenario (2006, p. 52). For the purpose of this essay, I will focus on Schapiro’s analysis of the murderer at the door scenario. While her analysis is nuanced and insightful, I contend that Schapiro has mistaken the nature of the murderer’s non-compliance in this case. I highlight this by developing the game analogy further. I suggest that the murderer is not refusing to play, as Schapiro would have it, rather he is cleverly playing the game by exploiting its rules. Seen in this light, his wrongdoing in this scenario would not be enough to subvert, or corrupt, the entire practice. Given this, disobedience to the moral law (lying in this case) would not be justified. I go on to suggest that further development of the game analogy could provide potential new insights into the nature of non-compliance and non-ideal conditions.