标题: 请教LR一题 [打印本页] 作者: yiner0111 时间: 2012-8-2 07:58 标题: 请教LR一题 Shanna: Owners of any work of art, simply by virtue of ownership, ethically have the right to destroy that artwork if they find it 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. 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.
The correct answer is A.
What confuses me is that though S would surely agree to destroy the portrait, we cannot conclude that J would disagree. Coz (A) doesn't tell us whether the "father's portrait" is valuable, not to say it is unique. Since we don't know whether the "father's portrait" is unique, we cannot ensure that J would disagree.作者: s_dUSA 时间: 2012-8-2 10:31
A ALONE justify B: means: if A，then B.
S: agree J: disagree, because for him, other factors has to be considered except A, for example: unique or not, aesthetic or historical value or not. No matter what, J won't agree that A itself can justify B, other factors should be taken into consideration作者: 玛莎丁丁 时间: 2012-8-2 10:43
The main disagreement between them is whether an owner is justified to destroy a work of art for the SOLE reason that he himself dislikes it. (not exactly precise) The father's portrait, i think, could be described as having ''historical value belongs to posterity''. Family root thing. (I remember there's a LR question about a mum who wants to sell a painting of her parents to afford her daughter into college, her husband refuted her proposal by arguing the painting's special family value. The dispute between them was whether connecting their daughter to family root by preserving the painting overrides the college thing...Roughly)作者: yiner0111 时间: 2012-8-3 02:41
Thanks for your help! I have figured it out.