Aesthetics and Ethics Have philosophers responded to Don Loeb's "Gastronomic Realism" paper? A lot of arguments for moral realism and objective aesthetic measurement of good/bad art also happen to apply to foods or jokes, humor but I see that philosophers are hardly concerned with these matters or often adopt differing views (subjectivists about quality of food or jokes). And another part that interests me is the conclusion of Loeb's paper. Even if there are mind independent facts and oughts about goodness of art, goodness of food why should we care when the objectively good art doesn't work for us, why should we force ourselves to eat good food when it is disgusting to us no matter how hard we try to like it and makes us suffer? Can't other reasons for appreciating something, doing something be more valuable and healthy for us than just a mere fact about something that - judging by different responses people have across cultures and/or because life experiences - has pretty weak impact on us anyway? And doesn't make it the fact of objective goodness of something pretty irrevelant, meaningless?

Read another response about Ethics, Beauty