The morality of criticizing others

[Syzygys]

This is a spinoff topic from another thread. I was criticized for criticizing others. Here is my take, then you guys can add yours....

Generally, I don't have a problem with criticism as long as it is valid. It can also be called constructive critisizm, when the bitching is done in a helpful way.
An example: Hey, you fat bastard, you should lose weight, because you will die young...
Of course the WAY how the criticism is done can be important. We can say bad news with a smile...

The major problem comes when the criticism is on a subjective matter, like for example morals (art, taste or sport are also problematic). Since different people have different sets of morals, what is immoral to you, could be fine by me. So we have to understand this major difference when criticism is done.

So again, personally I don't have a problem with criticism, because it is either valid (and then I might even try to follow it) or not valid, then who cares?

Your thoughts....

 

[madanthonywayne]

Giving out constuctive criticism is fine, and may even be helpful. But it definately won't make you popular.

 

[Baron Max]

Generally, I don't have a problem with criticism as long as it is valid.

And just who gets to decide whether or not it's "valid"?

...constructive critisizm, when the bitching is done in a helpful way.
An example: Hey, you fat bastard, you should lose weight, because you will die young...

But see, that example of criticism is not "valid" ...there are lots of fat bastards who live to a ripe old age. So see, in the example, it says, "...you WILL die young...", which is patently false. Does that make it an "invalid" criticism?

Since different people have different sets of morals, what is immoral to you, could be fine by me. So we have to understand this major difference when criticism is done.

Understanding the difference, and accepting it is two very different things. I'm sure many wars in human history have been fought because of that difference.

I would also wonder how we're all supposed to know and understand everyone else in the world prior to making any criticisms of anything?

So again, personally I don't have a problem with criticism, because it is either valid (and then I might even try to follow it) or not valid, then who cares?

And again, who decides "validity" of a criticism? The criticisor or the criticisee? Or some neutral party(-ies)?

Baron Max

 

[Sauna]

Everthing is critical. Every action makes a difference, so the more intelligent you are the more critical you get, and it is no good to hide it, to work at being stupid; politics already tried that and failed.

 

[RoyLennigan]

The validity of a criticism is subjectively evaluated by each party individually. If both parties have a similar perspective on cause and effect, then they should come to a moderate agreement. But if they disagree on even the slightest significant detail, then it becomes invalid.

I would say that a valid critical statement would be one that both can agree with. This is also subjective and can change over time. (i.e., a person can disagree with another's criticism, but then later experience something that reveals their words to be more true than previously thought.)

 

[Syzygys]

And just who gets to decide whether or not it's "valid"?

That is easy. Me...

But see, that example of criticism is not "valid" ...there are lots of fat bastards who live to a ripe old age.

Really? Name 3. And I mean the ripe old age as 90+... Also if they do, were they not fat they could live up to ripe old age + 5 years.

The weight issue is rather easy to decide, there are objective standards for that.

Understanding the difference, and accepting it is two very different things.

Very true. Most people have problem differentiating between onjective and subjective matters.

And again, who decides "validity" of a criticism? The criticisor or the criticisee? Or some neutral party(-ies)?

Common sense. If the topic can be decided objectively (facts) and the observation (criticism) is true, than it is an objective criticism.

If it involves art, musical taste, design, or any other likings, it is most likely not...

 

[Baron Max]

That is easy. Me...

Then there's really nothing more that should be said on the matter, right?

However, not being very smart myself, .....

And I mean the ripe old age as 90+...

There ain't a helluva a lot of skinny, healthy people that live to 90+, so what you're asking is completely out of the realm of natural occurance.

Also if they do, were they not fat they could live up to ripe old age + 5 years.

You, nor anyone else, can actually know that ....you can only speculate what MIGHT have been. Few of us, if any, can know the future. Heart attacks and deadly stokes happen to old, skinny, healthy people all the time, you just don't read about it because it's "normal".

Common sense. If the topic can be decided objectively (facts) and the observation (criticism) is true, than it is an objective criticism.

Common sense?? What the hell is that?!

As to "facts", we both know that facts can be altered, slanted, biased, and just plain selectively presented, so as to "prove" something to someone. So "the facts" must be in total, and understood and accepted by all concerned on the issue ....and when have you ever known that to happen?

Baron Max

 

[Syzygys]

Then there's really nothing more that should be said on the matter, right?

Well, you are improving...

I tell you what. Give me 3 different types of criticism what you can not decide which category they fall into, and I will help to decide...

There ain't a helluva a lot of skinny, healthy people that live to 90+,

What is your definition of "ripe old age"? By the way pretty much all of the people making it over 90 are normal or skinny...

You, nor anyone else, can actually know that ....you can only speculate what MIGHT have been.

Actually, no. There is a science (I know, you don't understand it) statistics, and by using it can be proven that those fat bastards would have lived longer, had they lost weight. I think the average is 5 years, but it depends on the % of overweightness....

Common sense?? What the hell is that?!

I should have known...

It is something like : take an umbrella when it is raining kind of thingy...

 

[Tiassa]

And just who gets to decide whether or not it's "valid"?

Pretty much whoever decides to take a whack at it.

More to the point, or why I bother addressing your question in the first place, is a very simple assertion: History is the validator.

I'm not talking about university professors describing the Iraqi Bush War fifty years after, but an even more fundamental process.

If one's criticism is, to borrow a phrase from a hooker, "divorced from reality", it should be obvious.

For instance, if I am critical of you because no crack-addict skinny black woman should wear a hand-me-down tutu ....

I think we could call that criticism "invalid". As far as I know, you're neither a crack addict or a black woman. And I won't say anything more about the tutus. (I promise.)

If, however, I criticize this or that assertion you make as somehow contradicting fact or record, it might actually be because you're at odds with history or reality. Whether or not you think the criticism is valid is your own opinion.

If I criticize you for whatever haircut you wear, well, it might be an arguable assertion, but it say more about how much I worry about your hair. Which wouldn't be what we would call a useful criticism. Unless, of course, you're wearing a Jheri-Curl mullet, or your dreads are full of fire ants.

Anybody can believe anything they want. But reality does assert certain, natural standards. Something is either true or false, else it becomes an abstraction, and therefore of no tangible weight.