Jump to content

I am entitled to my opinion

From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from I'm entitled to my opinion)

In logic, I am entitled to my opinion is an informal fallacy where someone rejects arguments against them by claiming the right to hold certain views.[1][2] This bad argument is sometimes used to defend false and harmful beliefs for political reasons, like Holocaust denial[3][4] and Holodomor denial.[5][6]

Whether someone is able to believe something has nothing to do with whether his or her view is true.[7] The truth of something that a person says is separate from that person's legal or moral rights to say or believe that thing.

Academic views

[change | change source]

Philosopher Patrick Stokes described the expression as problematic because "it is often used to defend factually indefensible positions" or to imply "an equal right to be heard on a matter in which only one of the two parties has the relevant expertise".[8]

In the field of journalism, many professors use a metaphor about reporting the weather to teach about this fallacy. The ethics of journalism tends to say that it it is important to check the facts, rather than simply to report different opinions.[9] A journalist from NBC shares this metaphor like this:[10]

Our job is not to report both sides. One side says it’s raining and the other side says it is not raining. Our job is to look out the window.

This metaphor shows an example of why the "I am entitled to my opinion" fallacy is a bad argument. Both people in the metaphor might believe they are correct, and both people might be allowed to say what they think the weather is, but that does not change what the actual weather outside is.

[change | change source]

References

[change | change source]
  1. Whyte, Jamie (2004). "The Right to Your Opinion". Crimes Against Logic. New York: McGraw-Hill. pp. 1–10. ISBN 0-07-144643-5.
  2. Whyte, Jamie (August 9, 2004). "Sorry, but you are not entitled to your opinion". The Times. Archived from the original on December 12, 2013. Alt URL
  3. "Working Definition of Holocaust Denial and Distortion". International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA). Retrieved October 17, 2024. Distortion of the Holocaust refers, inter alia, to:
    • Intentional efforts to excuse or minimize the the Holocaust or its principal elements, including collaborators and allies of Nazi Germany
    • Gross minimization of the number of the victims of the Holocaust in contradiction to reliable sources
    • Attempts to blame the Jews for causing their own genocide
    • Statements that cast the Holocaust as a positive historical event. Those statements are not Holocaust denial but are closely connected to it as a radical form of antisemitism. They may suggest that the Holocaust did not go far enough in accomplishing its goal of "the Final Solution of the Jewish Question"
    • Attempts to blur the responsibility for the establishment of concentration and death camps devised and operated by Nazi Germany by putting blame on other nations or ethnic groups
  4. * Dobczansky, Jurij (2009). "Affirmation and Denial: Holodomor-related Resources Recently Acquired by the Library of Congress". Holodomor Studies. 1 (2 [Summer-Autumn 2009]): 155–164. Archived from the original on 2024-08-19. Retrieved 2025-03-16.
  5. Deleuze, Gilles (1994) [1968]. "The Image of Thought". Difference and Repetition. Paul Patton (trans.). New York: Columbia University Press. pp. 129–167 (130). ISBN 0-231-08159-6.
  6. Stokes, Patrick (4 October 2012). "No, you're not entitled to your opinion". The Conversation. Retrieved 7 April 2017.
  7. "SPJ's Code of Ethics". Society of Professional Journalists. Retrieved 2025-03-24.
  8. "Quote Origin: If One Person Says It's Raining and Another Says It's Not Raining Then the Journalist Should Look Out the Window and Report the Truth – Quote Investigator®". 2023-11-14. Retrieved 2025-03-24.