Is Everyone's Opinion Worthy of Respect? Absolutely Not

The Conversation — Every year I try to do at least two things with my students. First, I address them as “Philosophers!” — a somewhat playful designation, but one I hope encourages them to become active learners.

Second, I raise this argument: “Surely you’ve heard the phrase ‘everyone has a right to their own opinion and to express it.’ Perhaps you’ve even used it yourself, maybe to shut down an argument or to put someone in a deadlock. Well, the moment you enter this class, you no longer have that right. You are not entitled to your own opinion. You are only entitled to what you can argue for.”

It might be a bit harsh; but philosophy teachers owe it to our students to teach them how to construct an argument and how to defend it; and when they arrive at an indefensible belief, to recognize it.

The problem with the phrase “I have a right to my own opinion” is that, in most cases, it is used to protect beliefs that should be abandoned. The phrase is a shorthand for the proposition “I can say or think whatever I like”; and by extension, arguing further against the speaker becomes somewhat disrespectful. In my view, this attitude leads to a false equivalence between experts and non-experts, and this is one of the damaging features of our public discourse that is spreading.

First of all, what is an opinion?

Plato distinguished between common opinions or beliefs (doxa) and certain knowledge; and this distinction remains useful today: unlike the two propositions “1+1=2” or “there are no square circles,” an opinion carries a degree of subjectivity and uncertainty. But the issue is that the scope of “opinion” starts from matters of taste or preference, extends to views on issues of great importance to most people, such as prudence or politics, and continues to all views rooted in technical expertise, such as legal or scientific opinions.

Regarding the first type of opinion, one really cannot argue or debate. It is foolish to insist you are wrong for thinking strawberry ice cream tastes better than chocolate. The problem is that we sometimes seem to implicitly assume that opinions of the second type, and even the third type, are also beyond debate and argument — the same assumption we hold for matters of taste. This is perhaps one of the reasons (there are undoubtedly others) why passionate novices think they have the right to disagree with climate scientists and immunologists^۱ and consider their own opinions “worthy of respect.”

Meryl Dorey is the founder of the Australian Vaccination Network^۲; a network that, despite its name, is vehemently anti-vaccine. Ms. Dorey has no medical qualifications but argues that if Bob Brown^۳, who is not a physicist, has the right to express an opinion on nuclear power, she should also be allowed to express an opinion on vaccines. However, no one assumed that Dr. Brown has the right to express an opinion on the physics of nuclear fission; what he does is comment on the manner of responding to that science, not on the science itself.

In that case, what does it mean to have a right to an opinion?

If “everyone has a right to their own opinion” merely means that no one has the right to stop individuals from thinking and saying what they want, then the phrase is true, but it is a completely trivial point. No one can stop you from saying that vaccines cause autism, no matter how many times this claim has been proven false.

On Monday, the ABC’s Media Watch program censured WIN-TV Wollongong⁴ for broadcasting a report on the measles outbreak that included a comment from Meryl Dorey. In response to a viewer complaint, WIN-TV said the report was “accurate, impartial and balanced, and presented the views of doctors and elite groups.” But the implication of this response is that both sides of the debate have an equal right to speak on a subject about which only one of them possesses the relevant expertise. Moreover, if WIN-TV’s response were about how to react to science, it would be an acceptable one; but the “debate” in question was about science itself, and if the opposition of these “elite groups” should probably be considered incorrect, they really had no right to be broadcast on television.

Media Watch host Jonathan Holmes was far more blunt: “There is evidence, and there is bulldust,” and it is not part of a reporter’s job to give bulldust an equal opportunity against serious expertise.

The reaction of anti-vaccination groups was predictable. On the Media Watch site, Ms. Dorey accused the ABC of explicitly calling for the censorship of a scientific debate. This response conflates “not taking your views seriously” with “not having an absolute right to hold or express your views”; or, to borrow Andrew Brown’s phrasing, it “confuses losing an argument with losing the right to argue.” Here too, the two meanings of “having a right” to an opinion have been conflated.

So the next time you hear someone say they have a right to their opinion, ask them why they think that. If nothing else, this question will probably lead to a more enjoyable conversation.

.

---

.

Notes:

* This piece was written by Patrick Stokes and published on October 4, 2012, under the title “No, you’re not entitled to your opinion” on the Conversation website. The website Tarjomaan published it on October 3, 2017, under the title “Is Everyone's Opinion Worthy of Respect? Absolutely Not” in a translation by Ali Kouchaki. ** Patrick Stokes is a graduate of the University of Melbourne and a lecturer in philosophy at Deakin University, Australia. [1] Immunology: A branch of biomedical science that examines the various immune responses of organisms to foreign antigens [Translator]. [2] The Australian Vaccination-Skeptics Network: Officially known as the Australian Vaccination Network (AVN), an anti-vaccination pressure group in Australia [Translator]. [3] Dr. Bob Brown: An Australian physician and environmentalist, formerly a senator and parliamentary leader of the Australian Greens [Translator].

[۴] WIN-TV Wollongong

.

---

.