Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-2pzkn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-14T22:32:50.641Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Right to Criticise

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 February 2009

R. S. Downie
Affiliation:
Glasgow University.

Extract

We are accustomed to the claim that appropriate backing must be available if criticism is to be justifiable. For example, if someone criticises a film he must be prepared to cite the criteria he is using and to show how they are or are not satisfied by the film. Such processes of evaluation have frequently been investigated: what has been less thoroughly sexplored is the right to criticise itself. Certainly, questions of the appropriate backing for critical utterances have bearing on the right to criticise (as I shall show), for one way of denying that a person has that right is to deny that he can provide the appropriate backing for his criticism. But the question of his right is a wider one, since the attempt to criticise may be blocked before the question of backing can arise at all. It is therefore worthwhile to explore the right to criticise with a view to discovering in what circum-stances it is defeasible. I shall be concerned mainly with the moral right to criticise as investigation of the legal right would raise issues for specialists in the laws of libel and slander.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal Institute of Philosophy 1969

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Aristotelian Society, Sup. vol. XXXIX, 1965Google Scholar. That Raphael's is not the only possible analysis may be seen from the reply to his paper by Mr. Bernard Mayo.

I am indebted for comments on this paper not only to Professor Raphael but also to Professor W. G. Maclagan and Miss Elizabeth Telfer.

2 Cf. Maclagan, W. G., ‘Punishment and Retribution’, Philosophy, 1939, Section V.CrossRefGoogle Scholar