People who are the most deeply committed to an idea or policy are also the most critical of it.

The author of the statement above ties the commitment of individuals to being critical of a policy or idea. Although on some occasions it may hold true, in general, the author has made a fallacy of hasty generalization linking the commitment and the being critical to a cause.

To begin with, many are counterexamples which people do not have any vestige of criticism, while they are deeply committed to an idea or policy. Clearly, one’s own life is the most important thing he/she has. Now, when people are ready to give their own lives for an idea or policy, we can recognize them as those who are most deeply committed to that idea. Among these committed individuals are religious terrorists. It is quite absurd to claim that they are most critical toward their idea. These individuals attach bombs to themselves and go into the masses to kill as much as they can. Here their commitment comes from their being brainwashed not to dare to be critical toward the extremist ideas. These people are even intolerant to any critique, let alone being a critical character.

Furthermore, blindly deeply commitment to a cause without being critical, is also rampant where individuals pursue their unquenchable thirst of power. Many are those dictators around the world and throughout the history whose lack of compromise in their decisions stands out clearly to illustrate my point. These commitments root in the voracious character of the individuals who are ready to pay any price to reach their goals. In this sense, can we recognize Kim Jung-UN as the most critical person toward the aggressive policy he advocates? This person as the leader of the North Korea pays every income of his nation for the military missiles at the expense of the majority of people mired in famine. Therefore, we can see that whether from seeking power or being brainwashed, there are blind adherents to ideas and policies who defy any notable criticism.

However, the authors’ claim is not totally wrong, there are also occasions in which the most critical person to a cause is behooved to firmly commit to the very cause. Despite the critical attitude people have toward an idea or policy, championing the very ideas in special times becomes the best possible choice for them. Consider the case of George Washington. This man was an outright critical of any war. But, during the Independence War of the United States of America, he stood in the core of war against Britain and won the independence for his new country. Therefore, we see that when the best choice of individuals is to adhere to same thing that they are critical toward it, the author’s claim makes sense.

In short, as discussed, there is no firm relation between the commitment to a cause and being critical toward it, as the author wrongly assumes. Only when there is not any better choice do the people who are critical toward a cause, deeply commit to that cause too.