Aesthetic,Ethical, and Cognitive Value

Abstract

This paper addresses two recent debates in aesthetics: the ‘moralist debate’, concerning the relationship between the ethical and aesthetic evaluations of artworks, and the ‘cognitivist debate’, concerning the relationship between the cognitive and aesthetic evaluations of artworks. Although the two debates appear to concern quite different issues, I argue that the various positions in each are marked by the same types of confusions and ambiguities. In particular, they demonstrate a persistent and unjustified conflation of aesthetic and artistic value, which in turn is based on a more general failure to explicitly tackle the demarcation of aesthetic value. As such, the claims of each side are rendered ambiguous in respect of the relation that is supposed to hold between all these types of value and artistic value. These issues are discussed in light of a recent argument proposed by Matthew Kieran, to undermine, to some extent, the conceptual distinction between aesthetic, cognitive-ethical, and artistic values in our appraisal of art works. In rejecting his argument, I defend the conceptual distinction and a pluralistic conception of artistic value that allows for cognitive and ethical values to count as artistic, but not aesthetic, values.     

The Relationship Between Aesthetic Value and Cognitive Value

Recent attention to the relationship between aesthetic value and cognitive value has focused on whether the latter can affect the former. In this article, I approach the issue from the opposite direction. I investigate whether the aesthetic value of a work can influence its cognitive value. More narrowly, I consider whether a work's aesthetic value ever contributes to or detracts from its philosophical value, which I take to include the truth of its claims, the strength of its arguments, and its internal consistency. I argue that aesthetic value does have such an impact, at least sometimes and to some degree. The aesthetic merits of some works help to preserve their consistency, and the aesthetic defects of other works render them self‐contradictory.     

论患者隐私权的伦理价值

什么是隐私权 ?为什么要保护隐私权 ?如何保护隐私权 ?本文将就这些问题做一探讨。1　隐私权的基本含义隐私权一词 ,源于英文的 ｐｒｉｖａｃｙ,意为秘密、私事、私生活、宁静不受干扰或侵犯的自由。按照《韦氏大辞典》的解释 ,主要含义有三 :一是指独立于其他公司或其他人的性质或状态 ;二是指不受未经批准的监视或视察 ;三解释为隐居、私宅、私人事务、私密环境等。《不列颠百科全书》(国际中文版 )中规定 :“隐私权是民事侵权行为法和美国宪法上的一个概念。在侵权行为中 ,隐私权是一种不受这样一些行为给与的精神上的伤害的权利 ;这些行…     

审美主体与伦理主体的比较研究

本文通过对审美主体和伦理主体的比较研究揭示了个体存在的伦理层面的含义。首先考察了老庄和海德格尔的后现代宗教式的主体和儒家形而上的宗教主体,以及儒家就伦理问题对于老庄的挑战。结论是他们都缺乏把他者的生存作为自己的绝对的责任的伦理含义,因而是审美主体：其次,通过对于环境主体和伦理主体及审美主体的关系的讨论,阐释了这样一个哲学基本问题：伦理存在必须以有限性存在为前提;而后者只是一个哲学的抽象。片面地强调人的有限性(尼采),片面强调有限存在与超越者的关系(老庄和海德格尔),或否认人的有限性,这些观点都忽略了人在这个世界上的伦理责任。后现代伦理学是指我,作为一个个体(me),对于他者的一切负有不可推卸的责任。     

交互与共享：人工智能医疗决策的伦理向度

人工智能在医疗健康领域的应用打破传统医−患决策格局,使其演变成医−机−患或机−患之间的多维医疗决策模式。人−机交互在医疗决策上存在三种可能性,分别为人工智能辅助医疗决策、人−机混合智能医疗决策以及人工智能替代医疗决策。然而,技术蕴含负面性,三种交互模式潜在着伦理风险。人工智能替代人类决策违背道德要求,混合智能才是未来发展趋势。因此,以混合智能为基础提出人−机共享医疗决策的伦理框架,通过构建信任、公正和责任的伦理基础,谋求实现以人为本的价值目标,用于增进人类福祉。

     

On Liking Aesthetic Value

According to tradition, aesthetic value is non-contingently connected to a certain feeling of liking or pleasure. Is that true? Two answers are on offer in the field of aesthetics today: 1. The Hedonist answers: Yes, aesthetic value is non-contingently connected to pleasure insofar as this value is constituted and explained by the power of its possessors to please (under standard conditions). 2. The Non-Affectivist answers: No. At best, pleasure is contingently related to aesthetic value. The aim of this paper is to point to a blind spot in the dialectic between these two standard positions by defending a third neglected answer to the question above, the answer of the Value-Meriting-Pleasure [VMP] advocate. According to this answer, a certain kind of (cognitive and responsive) pleasure is connected to aesthetic value non-contingently, but also non-hedonically. VMP is the view that objects of aesthetic value are non-contingently related to pleasure insofar as they merit a certain kind of pleasure. But, pace the hedonist, those objects are valuable (those that are to be engaged with etc.) neither on account of their capacity to give pleasure nor on account of the hedonic value of the attitude they merit.     

论医院实行单病种限价的伦理学价值

从单病种限价在医院内部管理机制等方面的作用出发,探讨了实施单病种限价的伦理价值基础和伦理学意义。认为单病种限价政策能促使医院形成“以人为本”的管理理念,切实维护患者利益,培养医务人员的医德素质,促使医院重视德源资产和品牌形象的建设,强化医务人员精益求精的科学精神,取信于民并帮助医院树立诚信的道德形象,是医院可持续发展的可取途径。     

The Aesthetic Achievement and Cognitive Value of Empathy for Rough Heroes

The Journal of Value Inquiry -     

行政问责的伦理价值

行政问责作为一种责任监督和追究机制,不仅具有政治、行政和法律等方面的价值,也具有重要的伦理价值,它们主要体现在:促进政府履行责任伦理构建责任政府,规范权力运行助推权力向善,尊重"民意"实现公共利益和弘扬道德责任塑造伦理人格等方面.     

略论高技术的伦理价值

当代高技术发展日新月异 ,它不仅迅速地改变着世界、改变着人类的生产方式 ,而且改变着人们的生活方式和思维方式。高技术的发展与广泛应用产生了正、负两重效应。关于高技术的伦理价值的分析与思考 ,已成为科技伦理 (高技术伦理 )的重要课题。     

论霍克海默的审美教育观及其当代价值

文章阐明了霍克海默的审美教育观及其当代价值,提出他的审美教育观是以主客体相互中介的"社会批判理论"为基础,以强调培育反思能力与自由个性的人为目标;他的这一审美教育观念不仅影响了现代德国美育教育学理论,也影响了美育教学和艺术创作,对于我国当代美育理论与教学实验及发展文化产业,都具有积极的借鉴及启示意义。     

The Nature of the Interaction between Moral and Artistic Value

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.     

"忠诚"的价值:家族企业管理的核心伦理条件

家族企业的二元形态以及内外分域结构,使家族企业管理总是优先强调"忠诚之价值",并使"忠诚的价值"成为家族企业管理的核心伦理条件."基于忠诚的管理"应当成为家族企业的经营战略.忠诚对企业伦理团结的造就,作为依赖性与独立的辩证统一,"忠诚领先"作为企业核心价值原理,以及忠诚与价值创造之间的循环,是"基于忠诚的管理"的核心理念、内在矛盾、基本原则和战略目标.家族企业如何将伦理忠诚转化为家族企业的愿景,是它面临的根本的管理伦理难题.家族企业只有通过忠诚价值的意义转化和层次跃升,才能透过忠诚法则构筑家族企业的共同梦想或愿景.