Debated.
Start debating
All motions

Sources · Art and character

This house believes art makes us better people.

Fact bank v1 · 12 cards

This is a philosophy motion, so the judge never rules either side's view true or false. These cards say what philosophers generally accept, and cover facts such as who argued what.

  1. ART-01

    “Reading fiction makes people better at understanding what others think and feel.”

    What philosophers generally accept

    Mostly right, but the effect is small. A 2018 review pooled 14 studies and found that reading fiction gave a small boost on tests of understanding other people, compared with reading non-fiction or reading nothing.

    These results come from tests, not from watching how people act in daily life. The review's authors said future studies should check whether the boost carries over into real life. Two experiments from 2013 found that readers who did not get emotionally caught up in a story ended up with lower empathy a week later. In one of them, readers who did get caught up ended up with higher empathy.

    “fiction reading leads to a small, statistically significant improvement in social-cognitive performance (g = .15-.16)”
    Journal of Experimental Psychology: General (abstract via PubMed, US National Library of Medicine)·Fiction reading has a small positive impact on social cognition: A meta-analysis (Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 2018)Government / parliament · 26 Feb 2018 ↗

    Further sources for this card

  2. ART-02

    “The famous study showing that reading literary fiction improves your ability to read other people's minds did not hold up when it was repeated.”

    What philosophers generally accept

    Mostly right. A 2013 study in the journal Science said reading a short piece of literary fiction quickly made people better on a test of reading other people's feelings. When three research teams repeated it with 792 people, literary fiction gave no extra boost compared with popular fiction, non-fiction or no reading at all.

    This does not mean reading never helps. The repeat study found that people who had read more fiction over their lives did better on the test. The authors said this may be because people who are good at reading others choose to read fiction, or because years of reading slowly build the skill. The original authors said the repeat was flawed, for example because some people may not have really read the texts, and that a cleaned-up check showed literary fiction beat popular fiction. The repeat team replied that this still did not match the original results.

    “we found no significant advantage in RMET scores for literary fiction compared to any of the other conditions”
    Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (abstract via PubMed, US National Library of Medicine)·Does reading a single passage of literary fiction really improve theory of mind? An attempt at replication (Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2016)Government / parliament · 19 Sept 2016 ↗

    Further sources for this card

  3. ART-03

    “People who take part in the arts are more likely to volunteer and give to charity.”

    What philosophers generally accept

    Mostly right, but it is a link, not proof. A UK survey of 30,476 people found that those who went to or took part in the arts were more likely to volunteer and give money to charity. Their arts habits also predicted more giving and volunteering two years later.

    The link held after taking into account personality, wealth, education, other background details and playing sport. The link the other way round, from giving to later arts-going, was weaker. But people described their own behaviour in the survey, and the authors say their data only show a link, so they cannot fully prove the arts cause the kindness.

    “people’s greater engagement with the arts predicts greater prosociality (volunteering and charitable giving) over a period of 2 years”
    Social Psychological and Personality Science (full text via PubMed Central, US National Library of Medicine)·The Arts as a Catalyst for Human Prosociality and Cooperation (Social Psychological and Personality Science)Government / parliament · 2 Aug 2017 ↗
  4. ART-04

    “Violent video games make young people more aggressive.”

    What philosophers generally accept

    Mostly right, but the effect is small. A 2018 review of 24 studies with over 17,000 young people found that playing violent games was linked to a small rise in physical aggression between 3 months and 4 years later.

    The studies followed the same young people over time, with average ages from 9 to 19, and took into account how aggressive they already were. When the researchers allowed for more background facts, the link shrank a little but did not go away. The authors call the effect modest. Some researchers argue an effect this small hardly matters, and others disagree. These studies measured aggression, not violent crime.

    “our metaanalysis yielded a modest effect size of ≈0.11 when additional covariates were not included”
    Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (full text via PubMed Central, US National Library of Medicine)·Metaanalysis of the relationship between violent video game play and physical aggression over time (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences)Government / parliament · 1 Oct 2018 ↗
  5. ART-05

    “The World Health Organization has found that the arts are good for our health.”

    What philosophers generally accept

    Mostly right. A 2019 review for the WHO in Europe looked at over 3,000 studies and found that the arts play a major role in preventing illness, keeping people healthy and helping to treat illness.

    The studies were a mix. They ranged from small pilot studies and case studies to large national studies and randomised trials. This review is about health, not about whether art makes people kinder. One study of 2,148 older adults in England found that those who went to things like museums, theatre or cinema every few months had a 32% lower risk of becoming depressed over the next 10 years. That study found a link, and its authors say it cannot prove the outings caused the lower risk.

    “Results from over 3000 studies identified a major role for the arts in the prevention of ill health”
    World Health Organization Regional Office for Europe·What is the evidence on the role of the arts in improving health and well-being? A scoping review (Health Evidence Network synthesis report 67)Intergovernmental body · 5 Nov 2019 ↗

    Further sources for this card

  6. ART-06

    “Violent films lead to more violent crime.”

    What philosophers generally accept

    Not in the short run, according to a major study of blockbuster films from 1995 to 2004. It found that violent crime went down on days when more people went to see violent films.

    The main reason seems to be that people who might be violent were sitting in cinemas instead of out drinking. The authors estimate violent films prevent almost 1,000 assaults on an average weekend. They also found hints that the films themselves raise violence a little, but this was outweighed. Lab experiments do find short-term rises in aggression after violent media. This study could not measure long-term effects, but it found no rise up to three weeks later.

    “We find that violent crime decreases on days with larger theater audiences for violent movies.”
    National Bureau of Economic Research·Does Movie Violence Increase Violent Crime? (NBER Working Paper 13718)Independent research institute · 1 Jan 2008 ↗
  7. ART-07

    “Going to museums, the theatre and concerts helps people live longer.”

    What philosophers generally accept

    There is a link, but it is not proven that the arts cause it. A 14-year study of 6,710 adults aged 50 and over in England found that people who went to museums, galleries, the theatre, concerts or the opera every few months or more had a 31% lower risk of dying during the study than people who never went.

    The link was still there after the researchers took into account things like wealth, education, health and social life. Going once or twice a year was linked to a 14% lower risk. But the study only watched what people did, so the authors say it cannot show cause and effect. Part of the link may come from arts-goers having better thinking skills, mental health and physical activity.

    “People who engaged with receptive arts activities on a frequent basis (every few months or more) had a 31% lower risk of dying”
    The BMJ (full text via PubMed Central, US National Library of Medicine)·The art of life and death: 14 year follow-up analyses of associations between arts engagement and mortality in the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing (The BMJ)Government / parliament · 18 Dec 2019 ↗
  8. ART-08

    “The Netflix show 13 Reasons Why led to more young people taking their own lives.”

    What philosophers generally accept

    Studies found a rise in youth suicides just after the show came out in 2017, but they cannot prove the show caused it, and a later re-check of the data disagreed.

    One study found the suicide rate among 10 to 17-year-olds was about 29% higher in the month after release than the earlier trend predicted. When boys and girls were looked at separately, the rise showed up only in boys. Another estimated 66 more suicides than expected among boys and 37 among girls aged 10 to 19 in the three months after release. A 2020 re-check found the rise among boys was no bigger than the rise in the month before the show came out. The teams behind the first two studies urged caution about young people watching the show and safer ways of showing suicide on screen.

    “The release of 13 Reasons Why was associated with a significant increase in monthly suicide rates among U.S. youth aged 10 to 17 years.”
    Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (author manuscript via PubMed Central, US National Library of Medicine)·Association Between the Release of Netflix's 13 Reasons Why and Suicide Rates in the United States: An Interrupted Time Series Analysis (Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry)Government / parliament · 28 Apr 2019 ↗

    Further sources for this card

  9. ART-09

    “Learning a musical instrument makes children smarter and better at school.”

    What philosophers generally accept

    The best studies say no. A 2020 review of 54 studies with 6,984 children found that once you allow for how well each study was designed, music lessons had no effect on thinking skills or on school results in reading and maths.

    Small benefits only showed up in weaker studies, where children were not put into groups at random and the comparison group did nothing special. The authors found music training made no difference whatever the kind of test, the children's age or how long the lessons lasted. Being cleverer is also a different question from being a better person.

    “Once the quality of study design is controlled for, the overall effect of music training programs is null”
    Memory & Cognition (full text via PubMed Central, US National Library of Medicine)·Cognitive and academic benefits of music training with children: A multilevel meta-analysis (Memory & Cognition)Government / parliament · 29 Jul 2020 ↗
  10. ART-10

    “Plato wanted to ban poets from his ideal society because he thought art could make people worse.”

    What philosophers generally accept

    Mostly right. In the Republic, Plato's ideal city bans imitative poetry, such as plays where the poet speaks as different characters, and sends such a poet off to another city with honours. But he made an exception for hymns to the gods and poems praising heroes.

    Plato worried that acting out bad characters makes people more like them. In Book 10 he widened the attack to imitation in general, including painting, saying it pulls the mind towards appearances instead of what is real. Scholars still argue about how his different arguments against poetry fit together.

    “The conclusion to this passage makes clear that the city will ban all mimetic works”
    Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy·Plato's AestheticsPeer-reviewed research · 22 Jul 2024 ↗
  11. ART-11

    “Aristotle said watching tragedies makes us better people by cleansing us of bad emotions.”

    What philosophers generally accept

    Partly. Aristotle did say a tragedy stirs up pity and fear and brings about a 'katharsis' of these feelings. But he never explained what he meant by it, and he did not clearly say it makes us morally better.

    Katharsis can mean purifying, purging like a medicine, or cleaning, and experts have argued about it for hundreds of years. In another book, the Politics, Aristotle seems to keep music used for katharsis separate from music used for moral education. He also thought a good tragedy should make us feel pity and fear strongly, not just a little. Some scholars read katharsis as bringing our feelings to the right level, and others as helping us see human life more clearly. These are their readings, not something Aristotle spells out.

    “has been the subject of endless debates, as Aristotle himself never explains himself about it”
    Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy·Aristotle's AestheticsPeer-reviewed research · 3 Dec 2021 ↗
  12. ART-12

    “The philosopher Friedrich Schiller argued that art can make people morally better.”

    What philosophers generally accept

    Confirmed: in his Letters on the Aesthetic Education of Man, published in 1795, Schiller argued that people's moral character needed developing, that growing their feelings was the most urgent need, and that fine art was the tool to do it.

    He wrote it after the French Revolution turned violent, which he blamed partly on too much focus on reason and too little on feeling. He also admitted a problem: in history, art has often had a corrupting effect. This is a philosopher's argument, not a scientific test.

    “The artist, then, is called upon to influence the world for the good”
    Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy·Friedrich SchillerPeer-reviewed research · 11 Apr 2025 ↗

The judge is an AI model. It can only rule on claims these cards cover. Everything else stays unverified, and it never rules on opinions. See every motion's cards.