Ben Taylor
Unfortunately for the continued promotion of intelligent thought, a pandemic of something nigh unto catastrophic proportions has dominated everyday discourse for quite some time now. It is the utterly preposterous, outright fallacious notion that individuals are entitled to their opinions, irrespective of whether they are well-formed, well-based or neither.
Jamie White, author of Crime Against Logic, writes about this common misconception, saying that “besides being false, [it] is forever being invoked when it would be irrelevant even if it were true.” In his book, he points out the perceived untouchability of opinions, the “absurd” notion that uttering a phrase such as “that’s all well and good, but I’m entitled to my opinion” could truly end a discussion.
Take the following example: you’re in a discussion concerning what should be done concerning a hypothetical rights violation in some other country (i.e. nerve gas in Syria, genocide in Iraq). You advocate military action in the region in order to prevent future violations in the same vein. In response, your opponent states that violence is never the correct option, so military action would be inappropriate. You again answer with a number of reasons supporting military action, to which they respond, “you raise some interesting points, but it’s my opinion that war is never the answer, so I don’t think we should intervene.” Such a statement is usually followed by a request to end the discussion.
The problem with the above interaction is not the answer but the lack of justification for it. It may very well be the case that war is never the answer, but you have not proved this point merely by asserting that it never is; it is imperative that such statements be justified or else they are worthless.
My statement is, admittedly, based in large part on an assumption of shared fundamental values in regard to the purpose of conversation in general and the liberal arts mission in particular. I am acting under the belief, which may indeed be false, that the persons who come to a college like Wooster are concerned with correct thought, with discovering which ideas to keep and which to discard. In such discussions, unjustified opinions are about as useful as broken vacuum cleaners: they usually make a lot of noise for far too long to little end.
So why am I writing this? Well, as the caption under my article notes, I’m now one of the editors of the Viewpoints section. In my time here, I will endeavor to ensure that the justifications for all my assertions are explained as fully as possible within the constraints of space and subject matter. It is likely, though, that I will sometimes fail, that my thinking and/or writing will be muddled or unclear. Maybe my opinions will even be unjustified (which is not necessarily to say unjustifiable). Should such a situation occur, with mine or any other viewpoint, I ask anyone who reads this section to share in an important task. Disagree. Write in. Voice your opinion. The marketplace of ideas must offer sundry wares lest it cease to be a true marketplace.
Please, be active readers. We who write aren’t entitled to our opinions, and it is up to those who read them to let us know why we’ve been living under falsehoods.
If not, our section will serve to be little more than a grain of sand in the desert. It will offer no sustenance, no hope and too long spent dwelling in it will surely ruin you.
