The relationship between art and morality is one of the most important questions in philosophy of art. “Moderate moralism”, as one of the contemporary approaches calaims that compared to other approaches it provides more appropriate explanation. In this paper, using library data collection and realistic analysis of content, the main theorists of moderate moralism (Carroll, Gaut and Kieran) and their perspectives and arguments are evaluated. The results of this study show that from a moderate moralist point of view, we can make a model for art criticism that considers other aesthetic values as well. The most important contrasts between radical moralist perspectives and moderate moralist perspectives are criterions of covering moral evaluation, using “insofar as principle” and “all things considered principle” and believing in plurality of art values. Also, moderate moralist perspectives have some divisions: Considering the criterions of covering moral evaluation, using “sometimes” or “always” arguments and using “an audience due to the moral features”. Evaluation of these three perspectives shows that the best is that of Gaut.