Pruss and Beauty

Heavily Pruss Dependent:  

An often cited example in support of subjectivism is the idea that in some cultures what counts as beautiful isn’t considered beautiful in other cultures.  The long necks of the Padaung are beautiful to members of that culture but not to Americans.  This seems to intuitively support the relativity of beauty judgements.  But consider the following example:  In visible light, Van Gogh’s paintings are beautiful - but not so much under x-ray.  We don’t think that this implies relativism.  Why not? What’s different about the two cases?  In both cases, for beauty to be appropriately perceived, you must possess the necessary context and perceptual apparatus.  But once you have that apparatus, you will - presumably - find these cases beautiful.  So while there’s a sort of relativism present in both cases, there’s also an absolutism.  

Still, there also seems to be the possibility that the Padaung are in error about their judgment.  But this supports absolutism, for one cannot be in error about their judgements of beauty if beauty judgements are relative. 

From these considerations, Pruss argues that beauty has both a relativistic and absolutist element.  There may not be one objective beauty for humans, angels, and vulcans.  But so long as Bob, Sally, and Daryl are humans, there is one beauty for them.  So beauty is relativized to the kind of thing something is - mixed with a proper function account.  If a member of a kind is properly functioning, then it will find beautiful what that kind considers beautiful.  

For something to be objectively beautiful, it is true regardless of human opinion, feelings, beliefs, or experience.

For something to be subjectively beautiful, it is only true because of human opinion, feelings, belief, or experience.

If we let in too much subjectivism, then we cannot admit the possibility of bad taste and error.  It seems possible that someone is wrong about what they consider to be beautiful.  But societal subjectivism isn’t right either, for then when one is admiring a proof or painting, then it ceases to be beautiful if society happens to change its mind behind your back.  So that seems wrong.  Plus this strong subjectivism doesn’t seem to make much sense of the importance of beauty.

Some further arguments against the subjectivity of beauty:  If beauty were just the pleasure and appreciation experienced by those who behold the beautiful object, “then Renoir would have done something in every way more valuable had he made his paintings somewhat less beautiful (say, 20% less beautiful, if that makes any sense) but worked to ensure that they would have twice as many viewers. That is absurd. Furthermore, although this intuition is not shared by all, it appears wrong to me to destroy a beautiful vase for no good reason even if nobody would ever again see it.”

But too much objectivism doesn’t seem to work either.  For what a human finds beautiful may not be beautiful to a vulcan.  Perhaps vulcans only see in infra red, and even though a human will find Van Gogh’s paintings beautiful, a vulcan cannot properly appreciate it.  

So it seems that we need a mix of subjectivism and absolutism or objectivism.  The beautiful is relative to kinds, and properly functioning members of a kind will find beautiful what that kind finds beautiful.  We get absolutism in that individual relativism is ruled out and in that there is a proper function for individuals.  

There is a stance dependence to beauty, but it’s an absolutist kind of stance dependence. Beautiful simpliciter is what is beautiful relative to some kind or other. For every kind of beauty, there is a kind of being that appreciates it.