It virtually always annoys me when my counterpart in a conversation, discussion or debate wheels out a conversational device which is guaranteed to end any further meaningful exchange. This linguistic H-bomb is nothing more than the apparently innocuous phrase "Everyone is entitled to their opinion," or something similar. I've finally worked out what it is that annoys me so much about this approach...
..
To prevent myself falling into the very faux-pas I've just described (and I am going to skirt very close to it at times), I'm going to get some key points out first;
1.) I have a set of values, principles and ethics, and I judge others on their actions and motivations, based at least in part on my own sense of morality. This is my right (in the sense of an innate ability) as a sentient, free-willed individual.
2.) I'm willing to listen to people's justifications for their actions, and even where those actions don't coincide with my own morality, I may still agree with them if they follow on from others' own first principles.
3.) If you are presented with an action which stems logically or naturally from a first principle you either agree with, or can not disagree with (not the same thing), you can not reasonably then condemn the action.
4.) Once you've established someone holds irrational (defined below) opinions and isn't willing to change them once the logical fallacy is pointed out, then any further discussion is pointless, and their judgement on the related subject is valueless. An "irrational" opinion in this sense is one which is logically impossible given the same person's stated, un-waivable first principles. As an example using current events -
Q1. "Do you think that it should be up to the inhabitants of a region/area to decide their sovereign affliations?"
A. "Yes,"
Q2. "Do you agree that the people of the Falklands/Gibraltar voted overwhelming to remain a British Overseas Territory?"
A. "Yes"
Q3. "So what do you think should happen with Gibraltar,"
A. "It should become part of Spain."
(I've actually had a version of this conversation three times over the last couple of weeks.)
Note: importantly the final answer here isn't the result of some unspoken additional principle I've omitted, it's a function of the opinion (Q3) being formed before considering the principles (Q1 and Q2), and then people being disinterested in changing their opinion in the face of evidence or constructed arguments.
5.) I don't believe in objective morals.
(Objective in this sense means independent of the people making the actions and judgements. If an action is objectively 'wrong' than it would be condemned by people from all cultures and backgrounds, aliens, dolphins, and so on. The main basis for objectively morality is some form of deity. If you accept the existence of a religious God, and said God has stated idolatry is wrong, then that's that, its not up to humans to argue the point).
..
Given all this then, allow me to present what I'm going to term "Judgmental Hypocrisy."
The situation isn't that unusual, something has come up in conversation which is part of the social institution to which getting smashed and screaming at the top of your voice, football hooliganism, Ibiza and glossy magazines are all part of. The response (usually from me) is to query why people choose to do this kind of thing; its inelegant, uncivilized, expensive and going off the number of people who subsequently end up sick, unconscious, or regretful also doesn't seem to have much to recommend it.
What I want at this point is for someone who has done this kind of thing (the latest example being 18-30s holidays), to explain and defend the motivations behind doing whatever it is I'm condemning. Maybe it's about inclusion into a social group, maybe its a right of passage, maybe it's to distract people from the humdrum of their normal lives by consuming so much alcohol they lose the ability to think, maybe its about easy sex or escapism. All of these are things I can at least appreciate, even if I don't agree with them.
The response I get instead is usually "Well everyone's entitled to do what they think is fun - they probably don't think reading a book or watching cricket is fun."
On the face of it this seems like an unassailable position, a short extension of the right to action or speech that everyone has by the fact of their existence, and, from some people (genuine traditional Liberals of the camp who agreed you shouldn't tell someone they were about to accidently kill themselves since that would be intruding on their freedom of action) I might even accept it. Unfortunately however this position is also shipped with a dripping of condescending sarcasm which adds the unspoken additional line "and since what you enjoying doing isn't really fun then your just wrong."
And herein comes the Judgmental part; what the people making the "yes but not everyone agrees with you," approach are actually saying is "You can't disagree with us because everyone has their own opinion, but your opinion is wrong," and it's this that really infuriates me. As soon as you want to criticize my position, you have to accept my criticism of your position, and this brings me back to the points above.
In the example under point 4.) I explained that in these type of cases the thought process has gone: This is what I do (i.e. talk about celeb magazines) > Someone doesn't think this is a great use of time (opposing opinion) > Everyone has their own opinion, and I'm right (Judgmental Hypocrisy (JH)) > End of conversation.
This loop is both unbreakable and can not be broken down or analysised. There is no basis for the opinions or actions being discussed, and there is no continuation possible after the JH moment. Therefore any attempt at return criticism is impossible because there isn't an argument or logic chain to criticize. One of my precepts has always been that actions and motivations should be founded on well thought out first principles. This doesn't have to be massively technical, but someone asks you "Why?" you should be able to answer, and that answer should be coherent. The approach adopted by the JH-es is the exact opposite- you don't need a reason or an explanation, because no one is entitled to question your opinion.
I doubt this is ever going to change, but at least next time someone tells you "Everyone's entitled to their opinion," you can think to yourself, "Ah, what you mean is you don't know why your doing what your doing, and you don't care."
If that makes you depressed, haughty or resigned I leave up to you!
/Happy Trails
Z
No comments:
Post a Comment