@texasjohnrh of course! Let's break down the stimulus first.
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.
MorAD or CBI ==> ERD not ERD ==> not M&AD & not CBI
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.
OUA ==> MRP & not MRD not MRP or MRD ==> not OUA
This is a Point at Issue question and clearly this disagreement revolves around when owners of art have the right to destroy their artwork.
The strategy we want to employ here is the "Yes/No" test.
(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.
Shanna: Yes. According to Shanna's principle: If aesthetically distasteful ==> ethical right to destroy.
Jorge: No. According to Jorge's principle, ownership of unique artworks carries the moral right to possess but not to destroy.
Since (A) satisfies our "Yes/No" test, (A) would be the correct answer.
(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.
Shanna: ? - We do not know what Shanna thinks about an owner's right to destroy if the owner has tired of it. Shanna's principle tells us that artwork can be destroyed if the owner finds it morally or aesthetically distasteful, or if caring for it becomes inconvenient. Neither of these is the same thing as just growing tired of a piece of art.
Jorge: No. Jorge would clearly disagree with this statement.
Since (E) is ?/No, it would be eliminated as an answer choice.
Hope this helps! Please let us know if you have any other questions.
joryjesOctober 6, 2018
I don't understand how we can assume that Jorge would consider a personal portrait of someone's father to be a unique work of art with aesthetic or historical value.
DDLMay 9, 2019
please answer the question below.
DDLMay 9, 2019
The explanation below says that "we don't know what Shana thinks about an owners right to destroy if the owner has tired of it"; however, Shana, in the passage says, "... or if caring for it becomes inconvenient." This seems to have a strong link to "tiring of something." More so than the argument that a picture of one's father is of historical or aesthetic value to all future generations.
RaviMay 12, 2019
@joryjes,
Great question.
(A) says, "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."
We can't assume that Jorge would consider a personal portrait of someone's father to be a unique work of art with aesthetic or historical value. For Shanna, having a dislike for something and owning it is sufficient reason to destroy it; for Jorge, there need to be other things considered, such as whether or not the item is culturally valuable and/or unique. This is why Shanna would agree with (A), whereas Jorge would disagree because he would need to know more information about the object in question in order to decide whether or not it's justifiable to destroy it. Don't get to caught up in wondering whether or not the portrait in question is something Jorge would consider to be a unique work of art. The key phrase that makes (A) correct is 'for that reason alone.' The big disagreement in the argument is about whether or not personal ownership is sufficient to justify destroying a piece of art. For Shanna, it is, and for Jorge, it isn't.
@NoName,
Fair point regarding (E), but even if we grant (E) that, it still has a big problem because it says "legally permissible." Shanna and Jorge are arguing about the moral right to destroy a piece of art, which is far different from a legal right. Legal rights to destroy art are not discussed in the stimulus, so we can get rid of (E).
Does this make sense? Let us know if you have any more questions!
MasonDeesAugust 5, 2022
Doesn't Shanna's argument rely on the assumption the artist either dislike their work or finds caring for it inconvenient? But, since the artist obviously created the unflattering portrait, how can we assume they find it aesthetically unpleasant?
Emil-KunkinAugust 7, 2022
Hi MasonDees,
We know nothing about what S thinks about artists. She is only talking about owners. Additionally, people can destroy things for reasons other than aesthetics or convenience. Perhaps a piece is connected to a bad memory, or the owner simply finds destruction to be fun.
