Here's
why. Regarding our beliefs, there are two kinds of legitimate entitlements,
which we'll call 'rights' - and by ‘our beliefs’ I mean propositions related to
facts about how the world is, not, of course, personal tastes like food, music
and books (of which more in a later Blog).The two kinds of legitimate
entitlements are; the right to something binding, and the right to not be
restricted to hold beliefs and express them. Naturally there are grey areas in
both of those entitlements, but for simplicity's sake; in the case of binding
rights, we'd say that if Jack fills up a trolley full of goods in Sainsbury's
with the intention of taking them home then Sainsbury's is entitled to receive
payment for those goods. And in the case of the right to not be restricted,
we'd say that however absurd or untypical Jack's view is, he has the
right to not be restricted in being able to hold that view - but that that
right comes with the understanding that others have the right to challenge that
view.
What
underwrites this point is that we do not choose our beliefs, nor do we choose
the force behind what those beliefs are. Opinions are based on beliefs, but
beliefs come involuntarily from other people, and from personal experience of
the world, so our opinions are, to the greatest extent, beyond our control and
cannot be changed artificially. If I point a gun to your head and tell you that
I will shoot you if you don't believe that Australia borders Mexico, you still
would not be able to arrive at the belief that Australia borders Mexico,
however hard you tried, because it is not factual, and we can't trick ourselves
into holding views we don't honestly hold. You may lie in the hope that you
don't get shot, but that's not the same as actually believing it.
When you
change your mind or learn something new, it is because you have been given
fresh information that, in your view, yields to reason, compelling argument and
evidence-based rationale. In other words, all opinions are held because they
are thought to be consistent with evidence and facts about the real world. It
is precisely for this reason that no one should be entitled to their opinions,
because a claim of entitlement to hold an opinion is, in fact, only a claim to
retain an opinion and not have it shown to be wrong - which basically means
it's an entitlement to retain opinions contrary to reason, compelling argument
and evidence-based rationale .
If you
really were entitled to your opinion you would be restricting others from improving
that opinion by reasoned argument and evidence-based demonstrations - you would
be like a man who has decided to imprison himself in his own home, turn off his
electricity, and live a life of self-sufficiency, not allowing himself to even
'hear' of the alternatives. By not stepping outside his front door he doesn't
just consign himself to eat, drink and wear only what currently resides in his
house, he denies others the ability to bring competition to his ideas by
offering new potential considerations and alternative perspectives. Of course,
everyone is free to reject any idea if it doesn't make sense to them, but by
staying at home and being self-sufficient they only deny themselves the
opportunity to hear new ideas and opinions.
If you
look at the two kinds of rights I mentioned a moment ago, you'll see that
neither applies to entitlement to hold an opinion. You have no binding contract
with anyone that disallows them from offering arguments against your views, and
you have no business claiming a restriction on others by imposing a duty on
them to let you retain your views. The idea that a person is entitled to their
opinion is a bit like a self-sufficient hermit being entitled to have no
competition for better goods. While we wouldn't want to restrict his ability to
be a self-sufficient hermit, we'd be foolish to argue that to protect this man
from new ideas and fresh options is best thing for him.
Remember,
this is not an insistence that he should take advantage of these options
offered to him - that would be as bad as restricting him from his choices - it
is simply a claim that this man is no better for having closed himself off from
the options. In fact, vindication for his self-sufficiency rests on, and is
enhanced by, his having knowledge of the things he chose to reject in favour of
his preferred choices. Similarly, beliefs, views and opinions are not stronger
by being held from behind a wall that seeks to block out intellectual and
epistemological expansion, they are made stronger when they have ran the
gauntlet of rigour along with all competing beliefs, views and opinions and
still come out on top. For those reasons, no one is entitled to a belief,
anymore than a monopoly power is entitled to operate without any competition.
If beliefs are held with a sense of entitlement they are held that way to put
up a wall against competing ideas, just as a monopoly power operates to
eliminate the competition, and thus denies people alternative choices.
Those
who want to exclaim that everyone is entitled to their opinion don't actually
mean that at all - they merely mean everyone is entitled to not be forced to
depart from an opinion. Those who declare that they want to be entitled to hold
an opinion are pretty much always those who hold opinions that are contrary to
reason, compelling argument and evidence-based rationale - hence they are the
people asking to be precluded from intellectual and epistemological expansion,
which is no human entitlement or right at all. As I said earlier, just like a
monopoly power trying to subjugate competition, in retaining the right to not
be forced to depart from an opinion, they are claiming the right to protect
their opinions from reason, compelling argument and evidence-based rationale,
which, for the good of the human race is something we ought to resist. Given
the extent to which people with absurd and preposterous views try to pass on
those views by manipulation, distortion of facts, and suppression of
contra-considerations, I would argue that the right to an open and honest
enquiry is much more of a human entitlement than the right to believe
nonsensical things that mislead people and cause pockets of human progression
to atrophy.
Far from
being a vehicle of merit, the notion that everyone is entitled to their own
opinions is, to me, quite socially noxious, because it is an incubator for
preposterous, repressive and manifestly false beliefs to survive with less of a
challenge than is required. What this notion fosters is a pseudo-politeness
whereby people believe that in the spirit of good manners it is favourable to
build gilded cages into which people can keep their beliefs sacred, and not
have those beliefs subjected to proper scrutiny. Just about all false and
stultifying beliefs retain their endurance only because of the way their most
influential exponents shield off the majority of adherents from an honest and
open enquiry - be they cults, marginalised organisations or religio-political
groups in developing countries that are able to repress and dominate their
people.
Due to
this general outward pseudo-politeness this means someone can live in another
country for years, even doing a university degree, without having his or her
often absurd beliefs challenged (I say 'outward' because inwardly those beliefs
are often felt to be ridiculous, which only foments dishonesty). If there were
a greater selection pressure on beliefs that are thought to be absurd it
wouldn't be an outrage on the people believing ridiculous things - it would be
a helpful, sometimes life-enhancing liberation, just as saving a drowning
person or rescuing someone trapped in a mine is life-enhancing. The sooner we
develop a much more naturally comfortable (and socially acceptable) way of
entitlement to question and enquire rather than perpetuating this entitlement
to belief we’ll find increased selection pressure on the more preposterous
beliefs, views and onions in the world, and the potential liberation of those
who adhere to them, and by extension, the human race.
* Photo
courtesy of teenmentalhealth.org
