without qualification and says, ‘This is the truth, even if it is objectionable in the prevailing view,’ then we say to him:

What you too have relied upon is not a demonstrative proof, but merely persuasive, rhetorical discourse. Your argument amounts to saying that anyone whose purpose in conferring benefit is to do what is more fitting aims thereby to spare himself blame. This is weak, for we may ask:

If, by saying that he spares himself blame, you mean that his purpose in acting is to avoid becoming deserving of blame, despite knowing that he would not deserve blame if he did not act, why do you say that this is impossible?! Is this anything but a self-imposed obligation?! If you mean something else, explain it so that we may discuss it.

Thus, the argument they have presented does not withstand rigorous testing and sound examination, but is