Send the link below via email or IMCopy
Present to your audienceStart remote presentation
- Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
- People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
- This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
- A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
- Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article
Transcript of TOK presentation
Who is more capable of going beyond personal preferences?
CAPITALIST ETHICS: as long as one is not violating other people’s basic rights (their right to property) one should act in ones own self-interest.
#Painting on other people's walls
UTILITARIANISM: An action is ethically correct if it increases overall happiness.
#Ambiguous => for / against What role does ethics play in justifying graffiti as art?
Ethics does play a significant role, yet perception in the end plays a more important role because graffiti is all about the immediate reaction of the viewer.
Graffiti dates back to cave paintings 40.000 years ago. As we know it, late 1960's in New York City.
Graffiti is illegal in most places. It is an method of expression where the painter sprays on walls. Expressive theory: the communication of the artist's emotions Aestheticism: art is about beauty.
Kant Disinterest - go beyond individual preferences An anarchist Perception A policeman Conclusions In this presentation I will:
- give a brief overview of graffiti
- look at art as an AOK in order to see if graffiti can be defined as art
- investigate different perceptions of graffiti
- explore various ethical theories in order to conclude my knowledge issue
Kant, with his rule of consistently generalizing to reach an ethical judgement, would fit into the Capitalist ethics.
"It is never alright to paint on another person's wall, therefore it is ethically wrong."
A Utilitarian would claim that if increased happiness follows an action it is ethically right. Further Considerations:
History - Graffiti as a historical source