Tuesday, August 14, 2012

the right to your opinion

It's such a simple way to end an argument: "Well, I'm entitled to my opinion."

Not according to logic. As author Jamie Whyte points out, one person's entitlement creates another's obligations. Think about it: if you are entitled to cross the street safely, I am obligated to not run you over in my car. But what if you're wrong in your thinking? What if we're in London, about to cross the street, and you look the wrong way and think the coast is clear? Am I obligated to watch you step off the curb and get crushed? Comprehension questions will accompany the vocabulary quiz Friday, August 17.

The Right to Your Opinion -


  1. Time to let it all out. I haven't entirely agreed with Jamie Whyte since we were first presented this document. He certainly attempts to be thorough in his ousting of the logic to this phrase. For the most part, he did a wonderful job. But I believe the true problem with this fallacy is that people use it at inappropriate times. Your right to decide whether you like the Beatles is not to be decided by somebody else, however, you cannot deny that most people are born with five fingers on each hand. What I mean to say is that I agree with what he says about people not wanting to be proven wrong but it is not logical to say that the phrase never has any grounds. Therefore, the validity of your right to an opinion relies on whether or not there is objective evidence.

  2. Dr. Preston, what happened to all of our comments? Because I see that you left everyones homework from the homework where we described and translated the Latin quote. But these seem to be gone.

    1. I think you are talking about the last year post. I saw your comments on there! you probably went on the link that Dr. Preston put on the assignment agenda. The link leads to last year post. Just letting you know :)

  3. Not sure what you mean. Matt was the only one who commented to this post so far. Please double-check the other posts and email me if something's gone missing.

  4. My opinion on the matter has actually changed since Sophomore year on this subject. Some opinions I believe we have the right to, such as the example given to enjoy a particular genre of music over another. However, such as in the car case my opinion has always been that you have the right to the thought of your opinion, but not the right to act upon it, which would have solved the car case. However, if they started in the middle of the road and had the same opinion, someone can very well fix that opinion for them, without the individual in the middle of the road acting at all. Since the author of this article does not give the absolute "We are NEVER entitled to our opinion", this one exceptional case proves their whole case to now be logically sound in my opinion.

  5. The way i see this article is that I do have the right to my opinion but there are certain things or certain people were to them my opnion won't mean anything. I can express my opinion on many topics like music, sports, the arts, and ect. but when it comes to other people oninions they could care less about mine or anyone elses and that also includes myself.

  6. Thank you Rhunyee, Now my thoughts shall be on both posts :)

    In general, an opinion is a subjective belief, and is the result of emotion or interpretation of facts. An opinion may be supported by an argument, although people may draw opposing opinions from the same set of facts. Opinions rarely change without new arguments being presented. Opinions are never right or wrong, they are merely a figment of what someone believes. However it can be reasoned that one opinion is better supported by the facts than another by analysing the supporting arguments.[1] In casual use, the term opinion may be the result of a person's perspective, understanding, particular feelings, beliefs, and desires. (Wikipedica.com)

    --- I find it odd that when she starts this article she talks about how your right is some one else's obligation. Then gives examples about Jack and Jill. For after Jack had stated his opinion (which is his right), Jill had no obligation to reply, it was of her choice. I mean I get the term in a sense, but I do not believe it goes for all the times an rightful opinion is given. Also when remebering this thought from last year I don't remember finding it depressing. But I do remember reevalutaing who I was. Because with out my own opinon, do I know who I am or what I enjoy? So that was a very deep experience for me. Now when I read this article I don't see it the same way. In fact im not thinking about myself in general at all. I'm actually thinking about how their is a humans rights court. And I am wondering how they decide what our rights are? Because everyone is different. It's not like you can just put us in a one size fits all category. Yet I am also wondering about how when we state an opinion it is usually to talk about the matter at hand, and most times join into a conversation. Little do we know though that by talking about our opinion we are no longer talking about the subject matter rather we have now "beguiled" the conversation towards our selves. Now that I am on the subject of our selves, it brings me to think about our rights, how is it we can have contradicting rights? For if it is our right to live a healthy life, is it not our right to die? And yet are rights violated by saying we have a right to our body , that is unless you cause harm to yourself (so it seems), then when you die your right is also violated? Either way it is your body giving up on you, thus bringing harm to yourseflf. This brings me to ask, do we have the right to die? Or are we all being "contumacious" ? Well those are my thoughts on this article --- Ashlie Pfeifer Per. 0