Roughly a fortnight before the Easter break I was in a seminar with eight other students discussing Plato’s sliding scale of reality. The material we debated was somewhat controversial, with views and suggestions ranging from one extreme end of the metaphorical spectrum right up to the other. One student even concluded that “infinite regress is absurd,” so Plato’s “entire theory of the forms is therefore rendered redundant.” I noticed that the more articulate students generally received a higher level of appreciation and recognition for their arguments than the quieter, less eloquent ones. Those able to put forward their beliefs in a coherent and structured manner were far more convincing than those who could not, irrespective of what they were actually arguing. I was intrigued.
Now, I think we’ve all heard the phrase “everyone is entitled to their own opinion” at some point in our lives – and indeed the large majority of us have probably used it – but the seminar led me to consider that perhaps the expression is more complex than it first appears. Perhaps, I now believe, it is actually false. You are not allowed your own opinion; you are simply entitled to beliefs for which you can reason and argue.
Of course, before I debate why, it might be wise to settle what an opinion actually is. I suppose the definitions range from favourites to observations and understandings about issues that concern people such as politics and religion; right through to the debates in expertise, such as a scientific point of view. Funnily enough, Plato himself distinguished clearly between opinion and fact, each very different, and concluded that any opinion must have a degree of subjectivity and uncertainty to it.
I’m not at all concerned with who your favourite Chuckle Brother is, or whether you prefer York to York St John – it would be mindless to insist that we’re not entitled to preferences like these and that you’re wrong to think coffee with milk is better than coffee without. The real issue, though, revolves around the fact that people obliquely seem to propose that all opinions are incontestable in the way that questions of taste are. It irritates me every time Joe Bloggs puts up his hand and argues with the panellists on Question Time before properly considering what he actually thinks and why he thinks it. Enthusiastic amateurs assume they’re entitled to disagree with climate scientists, for instance, and have their views “respected” equally. This brings us to a distinction that is often relatively unclear.
If “entitled to your opinion” merely implies that no-one has the right to prevent you from thinking and saying whatever you want, then the statement is true, but ultimately insignificant. No one can stop you saying that global warming isn’t caused by people, no matter how many times that claim has been disproven. However, if “entitled to your opinion” means “entitled to have your views treated as seriously as everyone else’s and as contenders for the truth” then it’s clearly false.
One of the main problems, then, is that the statement is used to defend and protect beliefs that should have been ridded of. It’s like saying “I can say or think whatever I like and you can’t argue with me.” Only when we know how to construct and defend an argument, and to recognize when a belief has become indefensible, are we fully entitled to our own opinion. And under those rules, we’d no doubt have some pretty quiet seminars.
Yep, agree. Although I would go further and say that you have to explain your preferences and favourites too. What good is it to just state that you “like something better” without explaining why?
but surely it’s about what the people are arguing rather than how they argue it? substance, not presentation
It’s completely true that while everyone can have an opinion, if they expect others to listen, they need to provide informed argument. You might hear people say “I don’t believe climate change is caused by man” as though this of itself should stand. But all this is, is an expression of feeling, instinctive preference and prejudice. Need to be careful about the different types of opinion though – why couldn’t I merely prefer the Tories, just as I prefer white coffee?
“I’m not at all concerned with who your favourite Chuckle Brother is”.
Poor example – everyone prefers Barry.
definition: the first difference between preferring white coffee and preferring the Tories is that the former is a preference which, if you were to act on it under normal circumstances, affects only you (and possibly the milk levels at your local coffee shop, and maybe the odd vegan who’d take exception to your choice). Acting on a preference for the Tories, by contrast, has political and moral elements which affect everybody in the country and, to a lesser extent, the world.
The second difference is that while to an extent one can argue about what makes one coffee better than another, your olfactory response is purely subjective. You can’t really cite statistics proving that white coffee is nicer than black coffee. You can cite statistics and make rational arguments as to which political party would be of the greatest benefit to humanity were they to be elected to power.
I suppose you could have an instinctive aesthetic response resulting in a preference for the Conservative Party, I guess. It would be immoral and irresponsible to act on it, but you could theoretically experienceit.