schweblog

As I continue to get older and a little bit more politically involved, I’ve encountered something–an idea that has permeated our society so much that it has become taboo to speak against it. It is, of course, the concept embodied by the phrase, “I’m entitled to my opinion” or “Well, that’s your opinion” or “Everyone has an opinion.” This phrase–like so many others that are part of our everyday vocabulary–is revealing of a much larger and much more problematic foundational problem embedded in our daily interactions.

First of all, some technical terminology–we need to differentiate between an opinion and a statement of fact. Opinions are generally matters of personal taste that can be influenced by a myriad of things. You may or may not like red or green chile, due to a traumatic experience as a child. You may or may not like a movie, thanks to the people that you went to go see it with. All of these are justified, defensible versions of opinions.

A statement of fact, however, is entirely different. It makes a claim of truth that is not concerned with one’s subjectivity. Either the ball did or did not fall off the table. John either killed or did not kill Mary. An organism has X amount of chromosomes or it does not. These are the indisputable facts regarding reality. Given the problematic nature of causation (thanks, Hume!) and the difficulty of proving something, truth is not easily discovered–somewhere though, deep down, there’s a reality that did occur, concrete and separate from subjectivity.

Inevitably, we merge the two for obvious reasons–even though it’s really irrational to do so. The first is clear: we all share emotion and several instances–the Holocaust, for example–inspire similar emotions within most of us. Naturally, we want to use that shared experience and extend it to the realm of fact (“Jack is bad.” “That movie is scary.”). The second reason is a little bit less obvious: appealing to another individual’s emotion can assist you in influencing a logical decision on their behalf. If I bring out horrific pictures of children running from a village after it was saturated in napalm, my counterpart will probably agree that the wide use of napalm was wrong in Vietnam. Our sense of logos and ethos share a common medium–the mind–and inevitably interact with one another.

Being aware of these things allow us to avoid confusing the two. However, most people don’t ever take the time to think about this distinction and, as such, we can justify a ridiculous statement of fact (“Bush is not violating our civil liberties with the Patriot Act!”) under the guise of opinion. There’s a social aspect to it all, of course–responding with a “well, that’s just your opinion” sweeps the issue under the rug so we can promptly get back to sipping our cocktails and talking about last Monday’s game. Opinions–however artificial–are comfortable.

This would all be well and good under any system that doesn’t have a democratic element to it, but this kind of approach in a democracy can have devastating effects. If a clear majority of the people are ignorant (or choose to be ignorant) of a particular set of facts that would clearly sway their opinion against a public official while, at the same time, the minority politely declines to comment because “it’s their opinion,” you can potentially have an idiot at the helm of the country (ahem…). It goes the other way, too. If the “in touch with reality” minority spoke out but the majority continued to embrace their “opinion” because it was their own, you’ll once again have a poor state of affairs for the nation.

Anyway…it’s an important distinction to make. Even if most people don’t do so.