649020BB-C0A8-4C12-BC92-E74DBC525832.JPG

In Defense of Immoralism: How Can Moral Beings Evaluate Artwork?

This article examines several theories that attempt to answer the question: how should we evaluate artwork? I’ll consider Berys Gaut’s ethicism, Noel Carroll’s moderate moralism, and lastly A.W. Eaton’s immoralism to determine that immoralism disproves both ethicism and moderate moralism. After explaining each theory and supporting each with examples, I’ll examine Eaton’s criticisms of ethicism and moderate moralism. Lastly, I will offer my own evaluation and defense of immoralism, which holds that morally reprehensible content in artwork can sometimes be a fundamental aesthetic achievement of that artwork and therefore make the artwork aesthetically better.

Berys Gaut’s ethicism states that if an artwork manifests ethically reprehensible attitudes, it is to that extent aesthetically defective. This view can be broken down into what Gaut calls the merited response argument, which consists of three premises: 

  1. Immoral art manifests unethical attitudes and prescribes them to an audience.

  2. Unethical responses to the prescription are never merited.

  3. It is an aesthetic flaw for art to prescribe an unmerited response, 

∴  Immoral art is aesthetically flawed.

In Gaut’s argument, immoral art is any artwork that presents immoral content e.g. murder. This type of artwork “manifests unethical attitudes” in that it presents and therefore seems to condone immoral content. The audience is “prescribed” these attitudes because the artwork – by condoning murder – also encourages the audience to condone murder. An “unethical response” to an artwork that condones murder might be also supporting murder. Because these types of responses are unethical, they are also never “merited” or appropriate. For Carroll, encouraging the audience to have an unethical and inappropriate response to the artwork (such as supporting murder) is an aesthetic flaw of that artwork.

One example of this is Vladimir Nabokov’s Lolita, which promotes pedophilia and rape. By nature of the novel, viewers are encouraged to empathize with a pedophile and rapist, Humbert Humbert, because he is arguably admirable in some ways, and yet also morally deplorable in others. In presenting a pedophile and rapist as admirable in at least some way, the novel seems to prescribe a sympathetic and unmerited response to pedophilia and rape, which according to Gaut would certainly make the novel aesthetically flawed. 

Slightly different from ethicism is Noel Carroll’s moderate moralism, which claims that for some art, the aesthetic value will depend on moral values. For Carroll, this is especially true for narrative arts, such as novels, and he cites a few novels to defend his theory. His argument is as follows: aesthetic values depend on moral values especially in narrative arts because they need to elicit emotional responses without which the audience’s understanding of the narrative would fail. This is to say that if an audience somehow does not experience the appropriate emotions based on the narrative – e.g. anger, sadness, joy – then they may miss a fundamental element of the narrative and thus be prevented from understanding the narrative’s message or purpose. If this is the case, the novel is aesthetically flawed. One reason why an audience may not experience the appropriate emotional response is that the narrative presents glaring immoral content that overwhelms other aspects of the story. An example that Carroll offers to support this theory is the novel and later movie, American Psycho, which depicts graphic murder in order to satirize the self-centeredness and greed of Wall Street professionals in the 1980s. According to Carroll, the murders are so graphic and unsettling that they prevent the audience from grasping the satire; the humor and irony no longer translate because the blood and gore are too distressing. If the audience is unable to understand the satire, which is the defining element of the narrative, then the narrative is aesthetically flawed. 

Opposing both ethicism and moderate moralism is A.W. Eaton’s theory of immoralism. This theory holds that a morally defective artwork that succeeds in making its audience share its immoral sentiments is morally defective and for the same reason aesthetically virtuous. In his essay, Eaton examines rough heroes Humbert Humbert from Lolita and Tony Soprano from The Soprano’s as morally defective characters in an otherwise aesthetically virtuous artwork. In my own discussion, I’ll consider another example of a rough hero, Pablo Escobar as he is portrayed in the Netflix series Narcos, as well as Humbert Humbert to defend immoralism. In defending this theory, I will show how it disproves both moderate moralism and ethicism.

Eaton’s argument for immoralism is as follows:

  1. One type of morally defective artwork is artwork that presents a rough hero.

  2. A rough hero presented in an artwork is a character that a) is equally as deplorable as he is likeable and b) brings the audience into a state of self-conflict. 

  3. Artworks that present a rough hero are compelling and present an artistic problem with which the audience must grapple.

  4. Artworks that are compelling and present an artistic problem with which the audience must grapple are aesthetically meritorious.

  5. Artworks that are aesthetically meritorious accomplish an aesthetic achievement.

∴    Moral defects in artworks (e.g. the presentation of a rough hero) can also be aesthetic achievements.

For Eaton, a morally defective artwork is any artwork that presents immoral content, such as murder. Eaton believes the first premise to be true because rough heroes present immoral content, such as murder, which would categorize any artwork within which a rough hero appears as a morally defective artwork. The second premise speaks to how Eaton defines a rough hero. The third premise follows from the second premise for Eaton because an artwork that presents a rough hero is especially compelling and therefore presents an “artistic problem.” The fourth premise states that the audience must “grapple” with this artistic problem because it is a necessary part of experiencing the artwork; if the audience did not stop to consider the problem, then they would not really be experiencing the artwork. In other words, to experience a morally defective artwork is to grapple with or consider the presented artistic problem. When the audience does consider the problem, the audience is challenged intellectually and morally. This is to say that in presenting this problem, the artwork allows for higher intellectual engagement, and as a result, more pleasure or satisfaction for the audience. For Eaton, this is an impressive and important quality of the artwork that makes it aesthetically meritorious. The last two premises follow that for these reasons, moral defects can sometimes be aesthetic achievements in artwork. 

To demonstrate this theory, I will consider Narcos, a Netflix series based on true events and the life of Colombian drug lord, Pablo Escobar, who at one point was making $22 billion a year smuggling cocaine into the U.S. Although Escobar is presented as a murderer, torturer, and narcoterrorist he is also painted as a family man who seemed to genuinely believe - albeit naively - that what he was doing was for the good of Colombia and its people. Between the scenes where Escobar murders his own confidants, commits abhorrent acts of terror against the people of Colombia and its government, and becomes extremely paranoid nearly to the point of self-destruction, there are also moments of insecurity and innocence. When Escobar visits his estranged father on an isolated farm he owns, Escobar fantasizes about bringing his children and wife to live there. For the duration of his son’s visit, Escobar’s father keeps his cards held tight to his chest, reluctant to reveal any of his true thoughts about the life his son has chosen. In an attempt to get something out of his father, Escobar begins attacking his father for not being in the lives of his grandchildren, for living a simple and lonely life, and for not appreciating what Escobar has accomplished, including being elected to Colombia’s House of Representatives. In a moment of clarity, his father looks Escobar in the eyes and tells him he’s ashamed of him. The pain of both characters is palpable, leaving the audience with conflicting emotions much like those of Escobar’s father: disgust and empathy. Finally, in that moment, Escobar must face the reality of what he has done: the people he has personally killed, the hundreds more lives lost, the millions more affected by drugs and drug addiction, the shame he has brought on his own family. When Escobar is finally killed by FBI agents, there is a sense of justice, but also a sense of great sorrow for Escobar who, like many people, deeply wanted to prove himself worthy to those he loved most, especially his father and his peers. Sadly, he decided early on the only way to get there was through violence.

What Narcos achieves in creating such a character is the making of a particularly compelling artwork; it challenges the limits of the audience’s moral standards by presenting a moral problem that the audience must face as they engage with the show. The audience must engage with big moral questions that may only be brought to light by this type of an artwork. For example, “do murderers, drug lords, or criminals deserve empathy, forgiveness, or redeemability?” Grappling with this kind of a question does not necessarily mean the audience condones murder, illegal drugs, or torture; it might simply mean that morality and their own moral beliefs are more nuanced than they originally thought. It might also mean that despite Escobar’s deplorable actions, the audience can still empathize with him for being human. It might also mean that works such as this bring to light why shared elements of human experience might be more important than the differences. In this way, the rough hero creates a fascinating moral dilemma for the audience, higher level engagement with the artwork, and the opportunity to discover truths and difficult moral realities about the world and about oneself. In this way, the show’s immoral content is an aesthetic achievement which improves the quality of the artwork as a whole. 

Now I will address ethicism and moderate moralism specifically and offer some possible responses of Eaton to both of these theories. As a reminder, Berys Gaut’s ethicism states that if an artwork manifests ethically reprehensible attitudes, it is to that extent aesthetically defective; the argument is as follows:

  1. Immoral art manifests (holds) unethical attitudes and prescribes (directs the audience to adopt or agree with) them to an audience.

  2. Unethical responses to the prescription are never merited.

  3. It is an aesthetic flaw for art to prescribe an unmerited response, 

∴  Immoral art is aesthetically flawed.

Eaton would disagree with the first premise of this argument. He might say that while immoral art does hold unethical attitudes, it does not necessarily encourage the audience to also adopt or agree with those attitudes. As with Lolita, Nabokov does not seek to condone or encourage rape and pedophilia, but rather seeks to tell an emotionally and intellectually challenging story that allows for quality engagement, satisfaction, and discovery by including these immoral concepts. In this way, the artwork is not aesthetically flawed because of its immoral content, it is actually aesthetically better precisely because of its immoral content.

Similar to ethicism, Carroll’s moderate moralism claims that for some art, especially narratives, the aesthetic value will depend on moral values. He states that aesthetic value depends on moral value in narrative arts because they need to elicit emotional responses without which the audience’s understanding of the narrative would fail. This is to say that if an audience somehow does not experience the appropriate emotions – e.g. anger, sadness, joy – then they may miss a fundamental element of the narrative and thus be prevented from understanding the narrative’s message or purpose. If this is the case, the novel is aesthetically flawed. 

In response to this argument and Carroll’s American Psycho example specifically, Eaton might say the following: Patrick Bateman is a rough hero who 1) is equally as deplorable as he is likeable, and 2) brings the audience into a state of self-conflict; and it is precisely this conflicting character that fuels the satire of the artwork, which is not only an aesthetic achievement but also a defining element. Bateman, although a psychopath, genuinely does not understand his thirst for serial murder and wants desperately to be caught and properly punished for his actions, which is the kind of character - one that commits heinous crimes without remorse or the possibility of retribution - that author Bret Easton Ellis is suggesting runs rampant on Wall Street - a particularly and even deathly superficial community. In an attempt to finally be free of the vicious cycle of killing people without the possibility of punishment either from a jail sentence or his own conscience, Bateman frantically confesses to his lawyer to viciously murdering several people, including another Wall Street executive, prostitutes, and homeless people. 

Not only does Bateman’s lawyer not denounce what his client has done, but he actually believes the confession was a joke. Frustrated and nearly disturbed at his lawyer’s response, Bateman nearly causes a scene before his lawyer tells him what he is saying would be impossible because he recently had dinner with one of Bateman’s alleged victims. The audience is dumbfounded and even angry, but not necessarily because they believe Bateman deserves punishment for his actions. The audience shares in Bateman’s frustration for not being condemned and properly punished because he so desperately wants to be free of his own sick mind. In that moment, the audience empathizes with Bateman, rather than all the people he murdered, for being a victim of his own psychopathic disorder and a victim of the glaring self-centeredness and greed of Wall Street professionalism that will not allow Bateman’s illness and confession to be taken seriously. Similarly to Narcos, American Psycho pushes the limits of the audience’s moral standards and makes for a particularly wonderful artwork in this way. For these reasons, American Psycho’s immoral content is also an aesthetic achievement. 

Considering Eaton’s possible responses to ethicism and moderate moralism, I believe that immoralism is the best theory for evaluating artwork examined in this article. The examples discussed make it clear that immoral content in artwork is not immediately an aesthetic flaw. While immoral content in artwork can be an aesthetic flaw, it can just as easily be an aesthetic achievement. 

I’ve examined several theories that attempt to answer the question: how should we evaluate artwork? Berys Gaut’s ethicism and Noel Carroll’s moderate moralism state similar but different claims that the aesthetic value of an artwork depends on the goodness of the moral values of that artwork at least to some degree. A.W. Eaton’s immoralism opposes both of these views and holds that morally reprehensible content in artwork can sometimes be an aesthetic achievement of that artwork and therefore make the artwork aesthetically better.  Ultimately, after examining all three theories, I believe immoralism is the most plausible theory considered for how we should evaluate artwork. With that said, the way we evaluate art – in both moral terms and aesthetic terms – is a complicated task worth more deliberation, rather than definition.

Bibliography

  1. Carroll, Noel. “Moderate Moralism.” British Journal of Aesthetics, Oxford University Press, vol. 26, no. 3, July 1996, pp. 223-238.

  2. Eaton, A.W. “Robust Immoralism.” The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticsm, 2012, pp. 281-291.

  3. Ellis, Bret Easton. American Psycho. Picador, 2015.

  4. Gaut, Berys. “The Ethical Criticism of Art.” Aesthetics and Ethics, Cambridge University Press, pp. 182-203.

  5. Nabokov, Vladimir. Lolita. Penguin Books, 2015.