Shanna: Owners of any work of art, simply by virtue of ownership, ethically have the right to destroy that artwork if they find morally or aesthetically distasteful, or if caring for it becomes inconvenient.
Jorge: Ownership of unique artworks, unlike ownership of other kinds of objects, carries the moral right to possess but not to destroy. A unique work of art with aesthetic or historical value belongs to posterity and so must be preserved, whatever the personal wishes of its legal owner.
25. On the basis of their statements, Shanna and Jorge are committed to disagreeing about the truth of which one of the following statements?
(A) Anyone who owns a portrait presenting his or her father in an unflattering light would for that reason alone be ethically justified in destroying it.
(B) People who own aesthetically valuable works of art have no moral obligation to make them available for public viewing.
(C) Valuable paintings by well-known artists are seldom intentionally damaged or destroyed by their owners.
(D) If a piece of sculpture is not unique, its owner has no ethical obligation to preserve it if doing so proves burdensome.
(E) It is legally permissible for a unique and historically valuable mural to be destroyed by its owner if he or she tires of it.答案是A，可我怎么觉得应该是E？作者: teyvhf 时间: 2004-8-5 06:45
For A: S would agree, and J would disagree, because J would challenge that if the portrait is "a unique work of art with aesthetic or historical value", then it can not be destroyed.
For E: J would disagree. And S could also disagree. Because S contends legitimate reasons for destryong are "if they find morally or aesthetically distasteful, or if caring for it becomes inconvenient." "tires of it", in E, does not fall into the S's legitimate reasons.
欢迎光临 国际顶尖MBA申请交流平台--TOPWAY MBA (http://forum.topway.org/)
