Smash hit

Does your right to your opinion oblige me to listen to you?

No, I haven’t the time. Many people have many opinions on many matters. You cannot walk through the West End of London without hearing some enthusiast declaring his opinions on our Saviour Jesus or on the Zionist conspiracy or some other topic of pressing concern. To listen to them all is impossible and not therefore a duty.

Does your right to your opinion oblige me to let you keep it?

This is closest to what I think most mean when they claim a right to their opinion. They do so at just that point in an argument when they would otherwise be forced to admit error and change their position. This is also the weakest possible interpretation of the right and thus the most likely to pass the test.

Yet, it is still too strong. We have no duty to let others keep their opinions. On the contrary, we often have a duty to try to change them. Take an obvious example. You are about to cross the street with a friend. A car is coming yet your friend still takes a stride into the road. Knowing that she is not suicidal, you infer that she is of the opinion that no cars are coming. Are you obliged to let her keep this opinion?

I say no. You ought to take every reasonable measure to change her opinion, perhaps by drawing her attention to the oncoming car, saying something like “look out, a car is coming”. By so doing, you have not violated her rights. Indeed, she will probably thank you.

On matters such as whether or not a car is about to crush them, everyone is interested in believing the truth; they will take the correction of their errors as a favour. The same goes for any other topic. If someone is interested in believing the truth, then he will not take the presentation of contrary evidence and argument as some kind of injury. He will not invoke an imaginary right that protects him against the revision of his opinions.

It is just that on some topics, many people are not really interested in believing the truth. They might prefer it if their opinion turned out to be true — that would be the icing on the cake — but truth is not too important.

Many of my friends, though subscribing to no familiar religion, claim to believe in a “superior intelligence” or “something higher than us”. Yet they will also cheerfully admit the absence of even a shred of evidence. Never mind. There is no cost in error, since the claim is so vague that it has no implications for action (unlike the case of the oncoming car). They just like believing it, perhaps because it would be nice if it were true, or because it helps them get along with their religious parents, or for some other reason.

But truth really is not the point, and it is most annoying to be pressed on the matter. And to register this, to make it clear that truth is neither here nor there, they declare: “I am entitled to my opinion.” Once you hear these words, you should realise that it is simple rudeness to persist with the matter. You may be interested in whether or not their opinion is true but take the hint, they aren’t.

Jamie Whyte is the author of Bad Thoughts: A Guide to Clear Thinking

Join the Debate at comment@thetimes.co.uk

Times Recommends

• We have kit and leadership. Let’s go
• Behind the scenes at the biggest deal
• Conferences — what a waste of money