The government should fund arts

but: public arts funding primarily benefits the already advantaged
but: the citizenry does not favor the use of public money for arts funding
- because: political decision should be subjected to citizens' will
because: it is the state's obligation to maintain an aesthetic environment (Carroll (1987) )
- because: (co) aesthetic need, which is to be satisfied with appropriate environment, is a basic necessity for human well-being (Carroll (1987) )
- because: it is the state's responsibility to provide the fellow citizens with the basic necessity for a good life (Carroll (1987) )
- because: without government support the condition necessary for satisfying our need for arts cannot be sustained
  - but: government funding is redundant
    - because: where people are interested in art, there will still be an audience to support new work (Carroll (1987) )
    - because: big businesses are attracted to arts patronage (Carroll (1987) )
      - because: projecting the kind of upwardly mobile profile associated with interest in the arts attracts upwardly mobile investors (Carroll (1987) )
    - but: arts audience are built by availability of arts production (Starr (1983) )
    - because: were there no audience whatsoever, it would be difficult to determine on what basis the government would justify funding arts (Carroll (1987) )
because: for the sake of fairness, the government should support arts production like it subsidizes the building of sports arena (Carroll (1987) )
- but: investing in sport is profitable, due to taxes on sport-related activities
- but: it may be the case that neither sports nor arts should be funded (Carroll (1987) )
because: preservation of arts, e.g. museum, is involved with education, which appears to be a legitimate realm of state's activity (Carroll (1987) )
- but: arts is not always about preserving culture, it is also a matter of creating culture, which exceeds the realm of education (Carroll (1987) )
because: arts in society can function as an economic stimulant, promoting prosperity, for example, attracting tourists (Carroll (1987) )
- but: it is unlikely that grants to individual artists for new works (as opposed to city art centers) can bring forth economic well-being of the society (Carroll (1987) )
- because: If state funding is not forthcoming, then many artists will be unemployed (Carroll (1987) )
  - but: artistic unemployment involves artists unemployment as artists rather than their unemployment simplicter (Carroll (1987) )
  - but: government does not have the responsibility to guarantee that everyone has the job he or she desires (Carroll (1987) )
  - but: under the copyright system, artists can speak and produce art works, and make money for that speech and works, without relying on government support (Hamilton (2002) )
but: it is the minority that should be supported
because: government promotion of arts helps enrich culture (Starr (1983) )
- but: the act of government intervention will lower the nation's cultural level and possibility lead to attempts at political control (Starr (1983) )
  - because: it is never appropriate to have a writer work under the chill of possible censorship, knowing that if he or she transgresses boundaries, funding may be lost (Hamilton (2002) )
  - because: state's funding of arts constitutes a kind of state censorship (Hamilton (2002) )
because: art performs a moralizing function so should be supported and promoted (Carroll (1987) )
- but: the realm of art should be pluralist and relatively independent of considerations of social utility (Carroll (1987) )
- because: through art the populace could be morally improved
  - because: arts can foster greater tolerance within society and thereby bolster the moral order (Carroll (1987) )
    - because: art has the capacity to engender moral improvement, with the tendency of certain kinds of art to develop our sympathies for others (Carroll (1987) )
      - because: some art enables us to see the world from different points of view, enabling us to grasp vicariously the situation of different classes, races and genders (Carroll (1987) )
- but: there is a great danger that the development of the art world will be skewed in certain directions (Carroll (1987) )
  - because: only that art which we can reasonably predict will increase moral sympathies can be funded (Carroll (1987) )
because: art is intrinsically good" it is good in itself
- but: the state does not an should not be taken to have a role in the production of whatever we conceive to be an intrinsic good or even an intrinsic good (Carroll (1987) )

Carroll, Noël. (1987). "Can Government Funding of the Arts Be Justified Theoretically?" in Journal of Aesthetic Education. Vol. 21, No. 1. (Spring 1987). p. 22

Carroll, Noël. (1987). "Can Government Funding of the Arts Be Justified Theoretically?" in Journal of Aesthetic Education. Vol. 21, No. 1. (Spring 1987). p. 27

Carroll, Noël. (1987). "Can Government Funding of the Arts Be Justified Theoretically?" in Journal of Aesthetic Education. Vol. 21, No. 1. (Spring 1987). p. 29

Carroll, Noël. (1987). "Can Government Funding of the Arts Be Justified Theoretically?" in Journal of Aesthetic Education. Vol. 21, No. 1. (Spring 1987). p. 30

Carroll, Noël. (1987). "Can Government Funding of the Arts Be Justified Theoretically?" in Journal of Aesthetic Education. Vol. 21, No. 1. (Spring 1987). p. 31

Carroll, Noël. (1987). "Can Government Funding of the Arts Be Justified Theoretically?" in Journal of Aesthetic Education. Vol. 21, No. 1. (Spring 1987). p. 32

Carroll, Noël. (1987). "Can Government Funding of the Arts Be Justified Theoretically?" in Journal of Aesthetic Education. Vol. 21, No. 1. (Spring 1987). p. 34

Hamilton, Marci. (2002). Why New Jersey Should Never Have Funded a Poet Laureate in the First Place: the Real Lesson of the Amiri Baraka Scandal (http://writ.lp.findlaw.com/hamilton/20021010.html)

Starr, Douglas P.(1983). "Private and Government Sources: Funding the Arts in Music Educators Journal. Vol. 69, No. 8 (Apr 1983). p. 43