One Answer

  1. To begin with, Christ's argument was made not against criticism per se, but against direct physical violence.

    What is the “moral right to criticize”? — also a rather vague concept. No matter what they say, everyone has their own morals. Someone denies another the right to criticize on some grounds, someone on others. Some people do not recognize the right to criticism in principle, or, on the contrary, the right to it is denied. Logic itself does not belong to moral systems, so the existence of a “moral right to criticize” is generally unimportant for evaluating arguments. Although the denial of the moral right, like votebautism, is another way to avoid criticism, to reject it, without refuting it in essence.

    This technique is considered a logical mistake more due to tradition. In reality, this is often not a mistake, but a deliberate rhetorical device based on it. Although people, especially young children and partly teenagers, often quite sincerely argue in this direction, and then this is a logical mistake in its purest form.

    A violation of logic, however, whether erroneous or intentional, consists in the fact that the subject matter of discussion and the quality of the opponent's arguments are not objectively evaluated in any way, and criticism is not refuted thereby. In reality, the truth / falsity of statements, the logic of arguments does not depend on the qualities of the person who leads them (roughly speaking, a bad person can also be right in some matter).

    Yes, if the critic himself has many of the shortcomings that he exposes, he can be accused of hypocrisy, but this will not affect the truth or falsity of his judgments. What is valid will remain valid, and what is false will remain false.

    One should not confuse the situation of comparative analysis with votebautism and criticism, when two objects are compared head-on with each other, and the reason for the differences may be interesting to the researcher.

    For example, if Vasya is accused of fraud, you will agree that” but you don't accuse Petka the prosecutor's son, although he is too! ” — this is not at all an argument in defense of Vasya himself 😉 Vasya's actions are the subject of consideration. But if you are interested in the problems of law enforcement, then you may be interested in the differences between Vasya and Petya, and this will not be votebautism. Unless, of course, you venture to infer Vasya's innocence from these differences alone.

Leave a Reply