Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
In response to criticism, we often say – in these or similar words – “Let’s see you do better!” Prima facie, it looks like this response is a challenge of a certain kind – a challenge to prove that one has what has recently been calledstanding. More generally, the data here seems to point a certain kind of norm of criticism:be better. Slightly more carefully: One must: criticize x with respect to standard s only if one is better than x with respect to standard s. In this paper, I defend precisely this norm of criticism – an underexplored norm that is nevertheless ubiquitous in our lives, once we begin looking for it. Thebe betternorm is, I hope to show, continuously invoked in a wide range of ordinary settings, can undergird and explain the widely endorsed non-hypocrisy condition on the standing to blame, and apparent counterexamples to the norm are no such counterexamples at all. I further contend that, given some plausible principles, my previous “moral commitment”account of the moral standing to blame will be extensionally equivalent to thebe betternorm.
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Patrick Todd
University of Edinburgh
Ergo an Open Access Journal of Philosophy
University of Edinburgh
Lund University
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Patrick Todd (Tue,) studied this question.
synapsesocial.com/papers/68e77577b6db6435876ea3a9 — DOI: https://doi.org/10.3998/ergo.5178