- Posts: 4
- Joined: Oct 12, 2019
In the explanation for question #1 on page 638 (2018 edition) it says, "For Jorge, the art would also have to be proven non-unique, non-aesthetically valuable, and non-historically valuable before he would justify the destruction". I'm clear on why (a) is correct, but I'm unclear on the phrasing of the explanation.
Jorge says "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."
In the first sentence, he refers to all unique art. In the second sentence, he refers to the subsect of unique art with aesthetical or historical value. Since his first sentence refers to all members of the group, why would the portrait need to be proven to be non-historically and non-aesthetically valuable for Jorge to find the destruction justified? Wouldn't non-uniqueness be sufficient?