Time Saving Truth from Falsehood and Envy, François Lemoyne, 1737
Trump: “I believe that cows can jump over the moon.”
Question: “Is that really true?”
Pence: “He has a right to his opinion.”
Conway: “He is presenting an alternative fact.”
Donald Trump recently tweeted: “In addition to winning the electoral college in a landslide, I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally.” Mike Pence defended this false statement by saying: “He’s entitled to express his opinion on that.” (Here is the video.) As someone who has devoted his life to a search for truth, such lying, obfuscation, and bad thinking causes me distress. I honestly believe that lying is the source of much human suffering.
This exchange and the recent piece, “A philosophy professor explains why you’re not entitled to your opinion,” reminded me that about two years ago I wrote a five-part entry on this blog about critical thinking. The first part was titled: “The Basics of Critical Thinking Part 1: You Don’t Always Have A Right To Your Opinion.” Given the new post-truth world we inhabit, I thought it might be wise to post an excerpt from that post. Here it is.
Let’s begin by asking: Are you always entitled to your own opinion? Consider, for example, that you claim evolution is “just” a theory. I point out that the word theory has a very special meaning in science—it means what normal people mean by “true beyond any reasonable doubt.” I explain to you that the “theory” of gravity or relativity or the atom are theories in the scientific sense and that they bring together millions of observations. I then explain that multiple branches of science converge on evolution—zoology, botany, genetics, molecular biology, geology, chemistry, anthropology, etc. I show you that virtually no legitimate biologist denies evolution. Now suppose you respond, “well I disagree, and I have a right to my opinion.” Is that relevant? No, it isn’t! I wasn’t claiming that you didn’t have a right to an opinion, I was showing you that your opinion is wrong. Being entitled to your opinion doesn’t show your opinion corresponds to the facts, it just shows that you believe something.
… Now you do have a right to believe anything you want, no matter how groundless, if by entitled you mean the political or legal interpretation of rights. Free speech allows you to ignorantly profess: “the earth is flat,” or “the moon is made of green cheese.” But you don’t have a right to believe anything if by entitled you mean an epistemic (knowledge, concerned with truth) right. In that sense, you are entitled to believe something only if you have good evidence, sound arguments, and so on. This is the distinction that causes difficulty. As a result, many people believe that their opinions are sacred and others must handle them with care. And, when confronted with counterarguments, they don’t consider that they might be wrong, instead, they take offense.
To understand why you don’t have an epistemic right to your opinion ask what duty I have that corresponds to your right to hold some opinion. (Having a right, implies that others have a duty to respect it. If you have a right to free speech, I do have the duty to let you speak.) Do I have the obligation to agree with you? Surely not, since supposedly I have a right to my opinion which may be different from yours. Do I have the obligation to listen to you? No, since I can’t listen to everyone, and some people, for example, are just scientifically illiterate. I don’t consult them about physics. Do I have the obligation to let you keep your opinion? Not always. If you don’t see an oncoming car as you start to cross the street, then I ought to try to change your mind about crossing that street, assuming that you don’t want to be hit by a car. O,r if you don’t see the rise of an authoritarian regime, I ought to try to change your mind about supporting it. And if someone is really interested in what’s true, they won’t take the presentation of counter-evidence as an injury.
Of course, many persons aren’t interested in what’s true; they just like believing certain things. If pressed about their opinions, they find it annoying and say: “I have a right to my opinions.” There are many reasons for this. Their false belief may be part of their group identity, or they may find it painful to change their minds, or they may be ignorant of other opinions, or they may profit from holding their opinion, etc.
But if someone continues to defend themselves with “I have a right to my opinion,” you can be assured of one thing—they aren’t interested in whether their opinion is true or not.
4 thoughts on “Do You Have A Right To Your Opinion? Trump & Millions of Illegal Votes”
Let me add a small comment on the US elections, although i am not involved and am far from US.
As i understand, Trump won the electorate college but not the population vote which Clinton won (if i’m using correct terms here). So there is a tension between what should count as better or truer democratic procedures in the elections. And here one tries to solidify the position one has by using arguments for or against the process that took place. There are of course better and worse arguments for that.
I think that part of the problem you describe arises from the use of words like “entitled” and “right”. Those words have connotations that can confuse the issue. I prefer to use terms like “subjective versus objective” or “opinion versus fact”. Thus, I might write something like this:
“You have every right to believe that cows can jump over the moon. Your opinion means nothing to anybody else. What matters is the objective truth, not your subjective opinion.”
An even simpler response to a statement of opinion that I find false is:
“Yes, and some people believe that the earth is flat, that ghosts are real, or that 9/11 was an inside job.”
Chris – I contrast the subjective/objective idea in a previous post. you can see it here if interested:
Reposting my first comment which has been deleted (i presume because of use of ordinary language pertaining to the subject nevertheless, rephrasing it)
It is NOT a matter whether one is entitled to her opinion. Even if that someone may be a public figure and even if her opinion is plain bull. This is NOT the matter. One can very well have a false opinion.
Furthermore one should not obfuscate opinion for others with control over others. This is a different matter. In most discussions around opinions, free speech and whether people are entitle to them, this obfuscation knowingly or unknowinglly creeps in and leads to wrong conclusions.
To paraphrase Voltaire: