Objection and Reply 2
Another objection that has been presented against the permittance of evil art is that the negatives of morally bad art outweigh any benefits it may have. Because evil art results in negative consequences for society, it is worth censoring and prohibiting, and artwork that is not worth having in society cannot be beautiful and of good quality. In regards to Triumph of the Will, this objection believes the risk the film creates by possibly convincing people that the Nazi party is heroic and just like the film presents makes removing it from society the better choice. The harm principle states that limiting freedom is only justified when it prevents harm from befalling others. Society, which has a responsibility to limit the harm should take steps to prevent or censor a piece of art that could result in harm. While the harm principle may sound like it has the public’s best interest in mind, I believe it is misjudging the value controversial art can have. Professor Paul Prescott outlines in his lecture on public norms and media …show more content…
Written prior to the American Civil War, the novel depicted slavery as cruel and inhumane. While society as a whole legally allowed slavery to exist, Stowe’s writing pointed out the damage done in the slave system. Widely successful, many people ignorant to the reality of slavery were forced to no longer ignore the truth. The conversation Stowe sparked was a powerful one, and just over a decade later slavery was illegal in the United States. Uncle Tom’s Cabin is just one example of how a piece of art can go against the beliefs held by a society and ultimately shine a light on how society can improve. If Stowe was not allowed to write and publish her novel then the conversation she created would not have happened and American history would be
Another objection that has been presented against the permittance of evil art is that the negatives of morally bad art outweigh any benefits it may have. Because evil art results in negative consequences for society, it is worth censoring and prohibiting, and artwork that is not worth having in society cannot be beautiful and of good quality. In regards to Triumph of the Will, this objection believes the risk the film creates by possibly convincing people that the Nazi party is heroic and just like the film presents makes removing it from society the better choice. The harm principle states that limiting freedom is only justified when it prevents harm from befalling others. Society, which has a responsibility to limit the harm should take steps to prevent or censor a piece of art that could result in harm. While the harm principle may sound like it has the public’s best interest in mind, I believe it is misjudging the value controversial art can have. Professor Paul Prescott outlines in his lecture on public norms and media …show more content…
Written prior to the American Civil War, the novel depicted slavery as cruel and inhumane. While society as a whole legally allowed slavery to exist, Stowe’s writing pointed out the damage done in the slave system. Widely successful, many people ignorant to the reality of slavery were forced to no longer ignore the truth. The conversation Stowe sparked was a powerful one, and just over a decade later slavery was illegal in the United States. Uncle Tom’s Cabin is just one example of how a piece of art can go against the beliefs held by a society and ultimately shine a light on how society can improve. If Stowe was not allowed to write and publish her novel then the conversation she created would not have happened and American history would be