Critical Times

Our opinions are a touchy matter. We can be confident of what we know for a fact. With what we know, we can show others that it is true. But when we give our opinions, we put our necks on the line.

Others may think our opinions are foolish or wrong-headed. Yet we cannot do without them. Experience and basic science are the basis of many of our day to day decisions but, since we have to be ready to deal with its impact on our lives, we have to also think about the world at large. We have to form opinions about what is going on in the country, other countries, and other times. Which political party would be best to run the country? What will happen to unemployment in the next few months? Who will win the AFL flag this year?

The answers to all these questions are a matter of opinion. We each of us have our own views, based largely on what we read in the papers, hear on the radio, or see on television. Contacts, what we are told in church, clubs and so on, can also provide the basis for our opinions, but for most of us the media is far and away the main source of our opinions.

The information we get from the media provides us with some knowledge about what is happening beyond our front gate. But mixed in with knowledge are the slants and speculations of journalists. Journalists are always expressing opinions, even when they are presented as news. Nothing we hear, even in church, should be taken as gospel. Although we have no basis for opinions apart from what we know and what we are told, we can use experience and other opinions to reflect on what we are told, and make up our own minds what to think.

To have an opinion is to believe that something is so, without being dead certain about it. But we act on our opinions, just as we act on what we know. Just as we can butter our toast because we know what we are doing and seeing in the kitchen, so our opinions guide our morals and politics, and plans we make for an uncertain future. Because we act on our opinions – sometimes with a lot at stake—we should make sure that the opinions we act on are not wild, gullible, or baseless. Although all of our opinions are uncertain, we can have better or worse evidence for them. The more good evidence we have for them, the more objective they are.

Uncertainty and embarrassment lead a lot of people to keep their opinions to themselves. For them, uncertainty is a good reason not to risk disagreement. Saying ‘It is just a matter of opinion’ is a way of avoiding debate and leaving everyone with their own point of view. Yet, despite uncertainty and the possibility of embarrassing differences, we need to exchange points of view with others. Dropping an issue might be best when there is no way of settling it, as can happen with religion. But this should only be a last resort. Discussion of differences challenges us to find the best possible case for what we believe. It can change our opinions and it can bring about agreement.

Discussion of opinion is what philosophy is all about. Philosophers deal with issues that are remote from everyday experience, where opinions either way lack sufficient evidence to be treated as fact. Yet the merits of these opinions can still be debated. Evidence for and against opinions can be put, even if it is never good enough to close debate. Philosophy can be good practice for the reflection and marshalling of evidence needed to make opinions as objective as possible. The opinions of philosophers are not necessarily more likely to be right, but philosophers are more likely to have a good case for them.

Philosophy develops skepticism, which can help if you do not want to be taken for a ride. Take what a friend of mine observed on a recent visit to Kenya. While waiting for his luggage at the Nairobi airport he saw a Mercedes draw up. A preacher climbed out and started telling an audience of luggage porters that God would look after anyone who shared his faith. The luggage porters, who were hardly flush with money, crowded round to offer him cash. When asked why, they said that a man who had done as well as the preacher must have something going for him. Having profited from hope, the preacher could offer his Mercedes as evidence for his claim that God would help people who believed in his message! Kenyan airport porters may be more desperate to do better than an average person in comfortable western countries. But we are equally capable of being deluded. After all, we have the government that we deserve.

I am not suggesting that everyone should think a lot about philosophy. It is not everyone’s cup of tea. But I think we can learn from what philosophers have had practice at doing – most importantly, we can learn to question the media from which we derive our opinions. If we do that, we will have a better chance of acting on opinions that have survived the tests of skepticism and demands for supporting evidence.

 

Ian Hunt is Associate Professor of Philosophy and Director of the Centre for Applied Philosophy at Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia.