A comparative critique goes beyond comparing two views to evaluate the quality of that comparison itself. This means assessing:
- Whether the comparison is fair (does it accurately represent each thinker?)
- Whether the similarities claimed are genuine or superficial
- Whether the differences identified are fundamental or merely verbal
- Which view emerges as more defensible after rigorous scrutiny
VCAA expects students at the highest level to not just compare viewpoints but to criticise those comparisons — finding weaknesses in how positions have been contrasted.
Sometimes two positions are said to be “similar” when the similarity is only surface-deep.
Example: Aristotle and Mill both say happiness is the ultimate good. But this comparative claim is misleading — Aristotle’s eudaimonia (active exercise of virtue) and Mill’s hedone (pleasure) are so different in content that calling them both “happiness” obscures a fundamental disagreement. A good critique exposes this: the word is shared; the concept is not.
Sometimes two positions are said to differ when they actually share deep assumptions.
Example: Sartre and Aristotle are often contrasted as “freedom vs. nature” thinkers. But both agree that humans are distinguished by rational self-determination. The real disagreement is about whether that self-determination occurs within a given framework of human nature (Aristotle) or creates its own framework (Sartre). A critique noting this shared assumption deepens the comparison.
Both Aristotle and Epicurus are often presented as agreeing on the importance of self-discipline and friendship for the good life.
KEY TAKEAWAY: A genuine comparative critique asks not only “what do they say?” but “what do they mean and why?”
Both are existentialists who agree that authentic freedom is central to the good life.
Virtue ethics (Aristotle) focuses on the agent’s character; utilitarianism (Mill) focuses on the consequences of actions.
| Issue | Analysis |
|---|---|
| Different questions | Aristotle asks “What kind of person should I be?” Mill asks “What should I do?” These may not even be competing answers — they address different levels of moral theory. |
| Role of emotions | Aristotle integrates emotions into virtue; Mill’s utilitarian calculus tends to treat emotions as inputs to the pleasure-pain ledger rather than as constitutive of a good character. |
| Scope | Mill’s principle is essentially impartial — your own happiness counts no more than anyone else’s. Aristotle focuses on one’s own flourishing, with care for others arising from virtue friendships. These represent fundamentally different moral orientations. |
To say “both agree that outcomes and character matter” flattens the structural difference: Mill derives rules from consequences; Aristotle derives action-guidance from the model of the virtuous person (phronimos). These are logically incompatible as foundations, even if they sometimes agree on specific verdicts.
Step 1: Accurately represent both positions — do not create straw men.
Step 2: Identify the claimed similarity or difference.
Step 3: Challenge its depth:
- Is the similarity real or verbal?
- Is the difference fundamental or superficial?
Step 4: Offer a more accurate characterisation.
Step 5: Explain what this reveals about which position is more defensible.
EXAM TIP: Students who earn top marks in comparative questions show that the comparison itself requires scrutiny. Saying “unlike what is sometimes assumed, Aristotle and Epicurus differ fundamentally in their account of friendship because…” demonstrates exactly this skill.
COMMON MISTAKE: Comparative critiques are not personal attacks on philosophers. The question is always about the quality of arguments and premises, not the person.
