No, you’re not entitled/in'taitld/to your opinion

By Patrick Stokes

Senior Lecturer in Philosophy, Deakin University

Every year, I try to do at least two things with my students at least once. First, Imake a pointof addressing them as “philosophers/fə'lɑsəfɚ/” – a bit cheesy/'tʃizi/, but hopefully it encourages active learning.

Secondly, I say something like this: “I’m sure you’ve heard the expression ‘everyone is entitled to their opinion.’ Perhaps you’ve even said it yourself, maybe tohead offan argument or bring one to a close. Well, as soon as you walk into this room, it’s no longer true. You are not entitled to your opinion. You are only entitled to what you can argue for.”

A bit harsh/hɑrʃ/? Perhaps, but philosophy teachers owe it to our students to teach them how to construct and defend an argument – and to recognize when a belief has become indefensible/ˌɪndɪ'fɛnsəbl/.

The problem with “I’m entitled to my opinion” is that, all too often, it’s used to shelter/'ʃɛltɚ/beliefs that should have been abandoned. It becomes shorthand for “I can say or think whatever I like” – and by extension, continuing to argue is somehow disrespectful/ˌdɪsrɪˈspɛktfəl/. And this attitude feeds, I suggest, into the false equivalence/ɪ’kwɪvələns/between experts and non-experts that is an increasingly pernicious/pɚ'nɪʃəs/feature of our public discourse.

Firstly, what’s an opinion?

Plato distinguished between opinion or common belief (doxa) and certain knowledge, and that’s still a workable distinction today: unlike “1+1=2” or “there are no square circles,” an opinion has a degree of subjectivity and uncertainty to it. But “opinion” ranges from tastes or preferences, through views about questions that concern most people such as prudence/'prʊdns/or politics, to views grounded in technical expertise, such as legal or scientific opinions.

You can’t really argue about the first kind of opinion. I’d be silly/'sɪli/to insist that you’re wrong to think strawberry ice cream is better than chocolate. The problem is that sometimes we implicitly/ɪmˈplɪsɪtlɪ/seem to take opinions of the second and even the third sort to be unarguable in the way questions of taste are. Perhaps that’s one reason (no doubt there are others) why enthusiastic/ɪn,θuzɪ'æstɪk/amateurs/'æmə,tʃʊr/think they’re entitled to disagree with climate scientists and immunologists/ˌimju'nɔlədʒist/and have their views “respected.”

https://theconversation.com/no-youre-not-entitled-to-your-opinion-9978

朗读内容的原文请点击文末的“阅读原文”