posted
I saw this article in Monday’s London Times and had to share it on Hatrack just because of the title: “Sorry, but you are not entitled to your opinion”. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,482-1207971_3,00.html I thought it particularly apropos our discussions that have no resolution between opposite sides.
The argument in a nutshell:
quote: rights: they are defined by the duties to which they give rise. The law gives us all a right to life. Your right to life means that everyone else has a duty not to kill you.
What, then, are the duties that the right to your opinions might entail? … Does your right to your opinion oblige me to agree with you? No … Does your right to your opinion oblige me to listen to you? No. … Does your right to your opinion oblige me to let you keep it? No.
He ends by stating that if in a discussion with someone
quote: to make it clear that truth is neither here nor there, they declare: “I am entitled to my opinion.” Once you hear these words, you should realize that it is simple rudeness to persist with the matter. You may be interested in whether or not their opinion is true but take the hint, they aren’t.
I say that the author illustrated his argument with extremes and failed to mention one duty. Specifically, there are some discussions where there is no proof of one side of the argument or the other, or where the evidence can be interpreted to support either side. Also, I believe that we have a duty not to persecute another for holding an opinion that is different than our own when it is not possible to prove the opinion right or wrong using hard evidence.
What say you to this argument?
Posts: 270 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
