There are no a-moral texts, even though amorality may be described by them: an amoral author would not dare into the search of beauty; it depends on a game of faculties that, also, play with the form. A moralizing literary text is not due to a game of author's faculties, but only to the author's conscience. Thus, it rebounds heavy and ugly. An ugly immoral literary text assaults on a redundant and calculated way some moral rules in favor of the "forbidden". Then, it is not a beautiful text. The aesthetic function is the one treating the stimulus as a purpose and not only as a means. This spontaneous behavior is condition of possibility for the moral act (the follower of the second kantian imperative). The one who spontaneously has the attitude that considers the other (alter) as a purpose and not only as a means, is a beautiful person. Its argued that it is not yet a morally good person. Anyway, "beau-ty" on its Latin etymologies (beau-t‚ and bello) means good, which involves a project that is dialoguing, truthful, respectful and advantageous for the community. It also means that the decision of using the proper means for the goal, has been taken. Once accepted the project, the individual shall act spontaneously on a ludicrous way so that the project may become real. He will be a more meritorious beautiful person if his spontaneous goodness means the overcoming over the experiences that have hurt hi. The matter is: is the moral beauty the highest point of morality? I will work on this topic on the basis of Schiller, Kant, Gadamer, and Sartre.
Moral Beauty, Inside and Out
