“De gustibus non est disputandum.” In matters of taste there can be no dispute.

The above appears to be the predominant attitude when it comes to discussions concerning aesthetics. Whether one is arguing about the quality of music, beer, television, or a painting, most conversations tend to flat-line rather quickly, resolving themselves with cheap “let’s agree to disagree” truces. This attitude is misguided; furthermore, it is nothing more than a form of relativism invoked in the aesthetic realm. Unfortunately, relativism doesn’t have a good track record of being taken as a serious contender for truth in any other area it has been proposed. Take the realm of ethics, for example: relativism is an empty moral philosophy (virtually no practicing ethicist accepts it; the problems with the view are well known and devastating, and it’s just all around the first view most ethics textbooks introduce and dismiss). The problem is, even if you have a hunch that some aesthetic object is better than another, it is notoriously hard to provide a rational justification as to why.

First, it’s very difficult to even know where to start such a dispute. I think many agree that there is something more to aesthetic objects than mere preference. A claim like “this beer is good because I think it’s good” sounds cheap, it’s too easy. Is the fact that I like something the only thing that decides whether it’s actually good? On the flip side, when we start thinking about alternatives to relativism in relation to art and aesthetics we find equally suspicious claims. If someone said “this beer is objectively good, and you should see that”, how would you react? Most people, of course, would respond with dismissal. How arrogant! What a coincidence that the beers you enjoy just so happen to be the “objectively good” ones. What could even be meant by “objectively good beer” anyway? That all beer drinkers should enjoy it? That sounds fishy, and just on the face of it wrong.

So, relativism and absolutism about beer both seem suspect. Is it possible to uncover a more balanced view meriting agreement between these two extremes?