It is the governments responsibility to protect our finest works of art

Now the phrase 'finest work of art' is a vague term; no doubt the boundary between the finest works and the not-so-fine works is not clear. It is also what is sometimes called a 'value-laden' term, since what makes something a fine work of art depends at least partly upon whether, in fact, people do value it (more generally, a value-laden term is one whose application to things depends in some way upon our attitudes towards those things; for example, the word 'weed' is value-laden, since whether or not something is a weed depends on whether we like or tolerate it in gardens or amongst crops). So now suppose some opponent of the conclusion responds to this argument with, 'Well, who is to say what are our finest works of art?; it's a matter of opinion'. But this is not an effective criticism of the argument. It may well be that there is some difficulty in achieving unanimity on such a question. But in order effectively to criticise an argument - in order to engage with it - one must either (i) show that the argument is a bad one - neither valid nor inductively forceful -or (ii) show or argue that one or more of the premises is false; or (iii) show, if it is an inductive argument, that it is defeated by some other argument. Merely pointing out that a term occurring in the argument is vague or value-laden is not sufficient. Certainly remarking the presence of vagueness is not sufficient. For example, 'bald' is a vague term, yet it is inductively forceful to argue 'Joe is not over 25, therefore Joe is not bald'. Nor is remarking the presence of a value-laden term sufficient as a criticism.

To make this vivid, consider this argument:

0 0

Post a comment