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.
24. Which one of the following principles, if accepted would contribute most to Shanna's defense of her position against that of Jorge?
(A) Truly great works of art are never morally or aesthetically distasteful to any serious student of the history of art.
(B) The right of future generations to have their artistic heritage preserved is of greater importance than the rights of any presently living individual.
(C) It would be imprudent to allow the present stock of artworks to be destroyed without some guarantee that the artists of the future will produce works as great as those produced in the past.
(D) There are certain entities over which no one would be ethically justified in claiming absolute rights to ownership.
(E) The autonomy of individuals to do what they wish with what is theirs must not be compromised, in the absence of a threat to anyone's health or safety.
答案：E
E states that owners can do whatever they want to do with their possession or property, as long as the action will not cause harm to others' health safety (no moral obligation). So destroying the art works one owns is part of what E covers. So E is for
以上是原来一个人的解释，in the absence of a threat to anyone's health or safety.是不是要排除Jorge反驳的可能性？
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 then 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：A
对A还是不是很理解。
24 No, the sentense does not function as a proof against further counterattack.
It just present another kind of situation under which one has the legitimate right to do whatever even at the cost of sacrificing aesthetic and historical value.
A tip to solve this type of question always go to negate the answer choice and, if the negated answer can function to weaken the conclusion, then it must be the right key in an actual supportive way.
25 For a question about the disagreement in a dialogue between two, the core inevitablly fall upon the first sentense of the second speaker.
In this question, Shanna thinks one can destroy an art work on the moral and aesthetic reason.
Jorge said one has the moral right to possess but not to destroy.
Therefore, if some work can be justified on moral ground in destroying it, then one can find Shanna's support and Jorge's oppose.
A, the key word is " ethically " which is the same to moral. So, someone intent to destroy a disagreeable picture of his father may well build his action on moral ground that forms the disagreement between S and J.
Clear?
hedonism, i got everything clear on 25T, thanks.
Unfortunately, I was a little confused about 24T, namely, what is the meaning of "in the absence of a threat to anyone's health or safety"? Accoriding to your explanation, does it mean "another kind of situation under which one could sacrifice anyone's health or satety"? Right?
| 欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/) | Powered by Discuz! X3.3 |