Moonyoung Song

This essay examines Jerrold Levinson’s hypothetical intentionalism with respect to the following two objections raised by actual intentionalists: (1) it is arbitrary to exclude certain kinds of evidence, such as the author’s pronouncements of intention, when hypothesizing about authorial intention; and (2) there exist counter-examples. I argue that these objections fail to establish that actual intentionalism is superior to hypothetical intentionalism and that hypothetical intentionalism is more plausible than actual intentionalism. I also suggest, however, that hypothetical intentionalism has difficulties when applied to truth in fiction and thus may not be a complete theory of literary work meaning broadly construed.

This essay aims to elucidate the so-called 'qua problem' often invoked in the debate on the interaction between moral and artistic values. The qua problem is currently understood as the failure to establish a direct value interaction. I argue that this way of understanding the qua problem is flawed because it does not make the qua problem a real problem, that is, a problem that makes an interactionist argument unsuccessful in virtue of having the problem. Instead, I propose that the qua problem should be understood as the failure to show that the fact that an artwork is (im)moral (as opposed to other related facts, such as those that ground this fact) explains, whether directly or indirectly, the work’s artistic value (as opposed to being connected to the artistic value in some other way).

It is widely agreed that an artwork having certain non-aesthetic properties explains its having a certain aesthetic property. One interesting feature of such an explanation is its selectivity—it cites only some of the non-aesthetic properties on which the presence of the aesthetic property depends. Hence a question arises as to what distinguishes the selected non-aesthetic properties from the unselected ones. I answer this question by proposing a selection principle modeled on Laura Franklin-Hall’s selection principle for causal explanation, according to which an explanation selects a package of factors that maximizes the ratio of delivery to cost.

I argue that the criteria governing the aptness of emotions directed towards fictional entities, such as characters and events in fiction, are structurally identical to the criteria governing the aptness of emotions directed towards real entities in the following sense: in both cases, aptness is characterized in terms of fittingness, justification, and being salience-tracking, and each of these notions is understood in an analogous way across reality- and fiction-directed emotions. The only differences are that, in the case of fiction-directed emotions, fictional truth rather than truth is relevant to fittingness, and salience in the context of engaging with the fiction replaces salience in the real context. Other asymmetries between the aptness criteria of fiction- and reality-directed emotions that seem to conflict with this claim are reducible to these two differences or stem from the failure to distinguish between emotions directed towards the content of a fiction and the fiction itself.

This article aims to advance our understanding of the interaction between moral and artistic value by asking what it means that an artwork's moral virtue or defect is an artistic virtue or defect and how we can prove or disprove such a claim. I approach these questions first by distinguishing between intrinsic and contextual value interactions and then by examining two strategies commonly used to establish claims about contextual value interaction: (1) appealing to the counterfactual dependence of the work's artistic value on its moral virtue or defect and (2) arguing that the work is artistically valuable (or defective) and morally valuable (or defective) for the same reasons. I argue that these strategies fail. I then propose new directions for research on the interaction between moral and artistic value.