Art/Literature and moral education

First off, I'd like to note that I feel neglected. Our blog does not have a link from the front page of JMc's main blog. Are you ashamed of us?

I'll use this post to describe and comment on an article I read, "The Wheel of Virtue: Art, Literature, and Moral Knowledge." At first, I read his post completely the wrong way. Arrogantly, I treated him as an outsider to philosophy, bitter for one reason or another. I realized that Carroll was quite well read as I continued, however.

Carroll first describes the three main arguments against the idea that literature and art can provide moral knowledge. They are as follows:

(1) The knowledge gained from art or literature is trivial.
(2) When does not learn anything from art or literature; it merely implies or suggests.
(3) Art or literature does not debate or defend claims, thus making it a deficient (or, even, nonexistent) form of knowledge.

After reading these arguments, I found the third to be the most compelling in light of the reading I've been doing in other classes. It seems like good arguments (which form the basis for knowledge) ought to stand up to criticism. But who is to stand up for a novel?

The minor argument presented, though one I find entirely compelling, is that literature is same in many respects to a thought experiment in philosophy. When we talk about a veil of ignorance, or the Ring of Gyges, we are trying to draw from one's apriori knowledge, something intuitive to them. Novels often have just as much intention as a philosopher has in using a particular thought experiment or example.

The primary claim advanced is that art and literature have much more conceptual discrimination than they are given credit for. By this, he means that there are distinctions between characters drawn--largely in the form of virtue or ethics--that allows us to analyze, scrutnize, and form judgments. He gives the example of several novels to demonstrate this. The dialogue I discuss as important to philosophy above comes into play when individuals engage in dialogue about the characters in the play.

I am compelled by his argument. In relation to our discussion, I think that there is something important. Children (and teenagers) are often incapable of engaging in and understanding in depth philosophical discussion. While I personally think they should be exposed to it, not everything will sink in. Literature can provide a way of engaging issue of ethics at a more real world level. The connections are clearer, and if there really is conceptual discrimination in the novel, adequate discussion can take place. I think novels are particularly important if one believes in virtue ethics. This is a prime way to develop the character necessary for moral decisionmaking. In some ways, the vagueness of novels also lends to the development of critical self reflection.