Jamie Whyte The Right To Your Opinion Analysis

“The Right to Your Opinion” by Jamie Whyte is a chapter from his book Crimes Against Logic which was published in 2004. In this chapter, he discusses the invalidity and weak logic behind the commonly used cliché of being entitled to one’s opinion and claims that having the right to one’s opinions is not only false but damaging to the flow of ideas between individuals. Whyte opens his argument with the statement that, whether you are right or wrong, the assertion that one has a right to their opinion neither adds relevant information nor advances the discussion towards any kind of settlement and as such is completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. He continues to explain the mixed interpretations of the entitlement: the legal interpretation here one is entitled to any opinion and the knowledge based interpretation that one is entitled to an opinion if and only if it is supported by evidence. According to Whyte, rights “are defined by the duties they give rise to” (Whyte, p. 413). Based on this statement, he poses three duties implied by having the right to one’s opinions: a duty to agree, a duty to listen, and a duty not to change …show more content…
Generally, it is a stubborn person’s last resort, considering that “they do so at just that point in an argument when they would otherwise be forced to admit error,” because it is a pointless statement which completely changes the subject of the entire argument (Whyte 414). Additionally, the statement does not logically make sense, because the term “entitlement” has two different meanings. In the context of law or politics, a person is “entitled,” because nothing can legally prevent a person from thinking a certain way. In the context of a generic argument, however, a person is only entitled to their opinion if it is backed by logic and facts (Whyte