O-pin-ion [uh-pin-yuhn] is defined as "a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty."
I happen to be one of those people who suffers from an apparent addiction to a form of social dialogue some might describe as 'friendly debate,' others 'argument,' and still others 'pontification.' And I'll be the first to admit that, for several years, the last of those three was not uncommonly the most accurate, as those who know me well will be glad to attest to. But I have aged just a wee bit, and learned to appreciate the utility of actually listening, of attempting to gain insight into why a person would hold a given conviction. Although on some subjects, 'conviction' is perhaps too strong a word.
On particularly contentious subjects, I have observed a peculiar, recurring statement which tends to come up towards the end of nearly every conversation, often in the form of what one might call 'a closing argument.' As a closing argument, it is as much as to say, 'oh well, we can know nothing' – which, as far as closing arguments goes, is about as futile as it gets. Aside from entirely negating the purpose of the debate – which is perfectly infuriating if you've been engaged in it for any length of time – it completely obliterates and nullifies both the premise and supporting content of the opposing argument. Of course, conveniently for the person making the assertion, it has the very same implications for both sides. Whether the motive is to escape acknowledging an objective truth, to quell fears of 'losing' an argument, or because one actually and sincerely believes it, I will not pretend to know; though I am sure it varies from person to person and subject to subject.
"Well, we're all entitled to our own opinions."
This is an absolutely intolerable and erroneous assertion.
If you are one to subscribe to this notion, you cannot possibly take offense at anything I may heretofore say on the subject – or any subject, for that matter. Furthermore, if your premise rests on my 'entitlement,' you cannot but accept it.
An opinion, by definition, refers to a belief or judgment. Furthermore - by definition - one that hasn't much of a leg to stand on. By reducing both sides of an argument down to an uncertain belief or judgment, arrived at by logic that is tenuous at best, you are effectively undermining, if not entirely defeating, everything you have presented to that point in support of your own argument. You are suggesting that there are no facts, that there are no objective truths to be observed or acknowledged in support of either side. That's nothing new. The Sophists invented the art of selective intellectual oblivion millennia ago, and it has been effectively employed throughout mankind's history to establish a philosophical system of invincible ignorance.
To deny that there is such a thing as objective truth, or to deny our capacity to observe and acknowledge it, is the epitome of absurdity. If you're prepared to tell me that I cannot know, empirically or otherwise, that I have ten fingers, my good nature compels me to charitably refer you to a reputable psychologist for evaluation.
Some things are elemental, irrefutable, immutable truths. Call it objective truth, or objective reality. The point is that X can be known. And X that can be known – and likewise Y that can be known by knowing X - are not subject to opinion. If X logically and conclusively either dictates or reveals Y, Y is not subject to opinion.
But as if pulling the opinion card isn't bad enough, I am asked to submit to the idea that we're entitled to hold that opinion. Alright, if we're debating on which shade of green will look better with a room, or whether a cabernet or syrah will go better with a steak, I'll grant you that. That's a subjective judgment. Be opinionated. But if we're discussing a matter of some import, something bound by ethical, moral, or legal principles, the assertion that one is 'entitled' to hold an opinion that is contrary to truth – contrary to observed knowledge of a principle – is not only absurd, it is exceptionally arrogant and it is extremely dangerous.
Starting with a simple example, I hold up an orange. Recognizing that it's the properties of the thing that make it an orange, whether in fact it happens to be painted green, or happens to have been squeezed into the shape of a square, or perhaps has even been genetically engineered not to produce seeds, the entity of the thing is an orange. And were I to assert that the orange was, indeed, a potato, I doubt very much anyone would permit me the luxury of claiming I was entitled to that opinion. Rather I would simply be regarded as an imbecilic oaf. But even if, indeed, I were entitled to that opinion, the implications wouldn't have much impact on others; excepting, perhaps, the grocery attendant, who would have a field day trying to comprehend why I insist on paying no more than the price of a potato.
On the other end of the spectrum, to take a more extreme example, consider the implications of entitlement when applied to, oh…, let's say the Ku Klux Klan:
"Well Mr. White Supremacist, you're entitled to that opinion. I am of the opinion that there is one race – the human race, and that it includes people of every color and ethnicity. But if your opinion is otherwise, and you feel it's a good idea to wipe out an entire people because their skin tone differs from yours, I guess I'll just have to respect and accept that. You're entitled to it."
Yes, I know what you're thinking. Just because he's entitled to that opinion doesn't mean he's entitled to act on them. Mmmm… are you sure about that?
If your premise is that everyone is indeed entitled to their own opinions, by that same argument they're entitled to have opinions about whether they're entitled to act on them, and how they act on them, and whether the laws prohibiting those actions are valid, and consequently whether they are bound by those laws. Can anyone spell 'chaos?'
And yes, that's why we have laws, and a system of government that affords people the chance to participate in enacting those laws, so that to some extent the majority within a civilization can just agree not to step on each other's toes, even if they are at times inclined to stomp on each others' heads. If the majority of the people happen to hold opinions that for the most part agree with one another, we are content to enact and enforce law. That's enough, isn't it? That there is a majority?
I have a sneaking suspicion that's not a statement you're prepared to agree with, or you'd be chalking just a few atrocities against humanity up to the entitlement of majority, or 'popular,' opinion. Anywhere one people happened to outnumber another, we'd just have to accept that the minority had a stroke of bad luck, and if that meant genocide, well, so be it.
No, there's something more than that. There's something universal, something innate in every one of us that recognizes the underlying principle. Perhaps for some it is not so easily identified – which is a tragedy of epic proportions in and of itself. But that principle is so supremely obvious, and so universally observed, acknowledged and adhered to, that it has consistently been one of the foundational principles on which human civilizations for eons have been structured. And that principle is the inherent dignity of the human person.
This is a universally acknowledged principle, an objective truth. There is no amount of entitlement or opinion that has any power to change it, majority or otherwise – any more than majority opinion could have any bearing on whether an orange was an orange – save to destroy it.
So if we're having a debate about whether, for example, certain fundamental rights of a particular class of people are to be acknowledged, don't think for a minute that you, or I, or anyone else, for that matter, is entitled to hold whatever opinion we may choose on the matter. Don't get me wrong: I'm entirely on board with freedom of thought. But freedom of thought, as distinct from holding an opinion, is the freedom to exercise one's capacity to think, to utilize the faculty of reason to arrive at a logical conclusion or judgment. It is not license to hold as true a logical contradiction, particularly when it is a contradiction which challenges, denies, or ignores the immutable and inherent dignity of a human life. We are not free to content ourselves with erroneous judgment when the dignity of human life is in question.
Take some time to reflect on that, and next time you have a discussion, debate, or conversation on the contentious subject of abortion, don't even think about suggesting "we're all entitled to our own opinions," unless you are prepared to submit that your own life and dignity can be as arbitrarily – and as whimsically - decided upon.
No comments:
Post a Comment