A piece today suggests much of the opposition to Obama's health care reforms is based on racism. Another piece suggests support for bringing Khadr back to Canada is politically motivated. Others, yes including me, have previously questioned whether positions about Israel are motivated by malice.
The problem with going to motive is that it moves a debate to irrelevances. So, assume a critic of Obama's health plan is motivated by racial animus; does that affect the substance of the opposition? Suppose a critic of Israel is an anti-Semite; does that automatically mean that Israel is right? (And I am well aware I have fallen into the trap of so thinking).
Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
Motive goes (at most) to credibility -- so comments by a racist should be closely scrutinised -- but the underlying concerns may be valid.
Hamas and its fellow travellers may, from time to time, have a point; the KKK is occasionally correct. That doesn't mean we should ignore who is speaking but does mean we cannot dismiss a complaint because we loath the complainant -- merits, not persons, must determine our thinking.
James Morton
1100-5255 Yonge Street
Toronto, Ontario
M2N 6P4
416 225 2777
2 comments:
Conflating criticism of Israel with criticism of Obama is an example of another fallacy.
Despite your protestations, criticisms of Israel are for the most part not based in anti-Semeticism. Israel has acted on numerous occasions in an indefensible manner. The criticisms of Israel are a posteriori, not a priori.
The analogy does not hold. Israel and Obama are completely different.
Downes,
I agree -- that was my point -- I fell into the same trap so I was acknowledging my error. I guess I wasn't very clear.
james
Post a Comment