Value theory—your opinion don't mean jack

Great Debates
1

Recently, and not-so-recently, and come to think of it the whole time I have been on the boards, I have heard people mention the atomic fact, the eternal truth, the American Way of saying that opinions are equal, or—if perhaps not so strong of a claim—that at least all opinions should be treated equally.

In an attempt to understand this undoubtedly philosophical premise I will ask those of you willing to answer the following question: why?

Ah, such a simple question, isn’t it? But let us look at this from a specific perspective.

Opinions can have value
Seems rather intuitive that certain opinions can be valuable. This raises the question of just what value is, which is fine, but rather than debate value itself, I am humbly requesting that we restrict it to the realm of the value of opinions. That is, since we accept that at least some opinions are valuable, from where does this value come from? And can you demonstrate that opinions, unlike other things of value, should be treated equally?

My Stand
Value is entirely based on context (note: it is not necessarily subjective!). A thing has value if and only if it is required to perform a function. I will ascribe it value if I think that function is “good.” But regardelss of my opinion, gold is a valuable conductor. If I want an efficient conductor that will last over time, I would want gold. But even if I didn’t, gold would still be an efficient and durable conductor. Thus, gold has value with respect to the context of the function.

Because of this, the fact that you have an opinion doesn’t automatically make it valuable. Two questions must always be answered: (1) How does your opinion fit into the context? and (2) How do I personally value the context, and thus your opinion?

This dual-use of “value” can be, for some people, very difficult to grasp, so I will propose a completely made-up word for subjective value in order to ease the conversation. When I subjectively value something, I like it. It is a regular verb, for those who wonder about construction in different tenses.

In this construct, then, I will state my stand as clearly as possible. Opinions do not have any inherent value, and I do not like or not-like opinions inherently. Opinions gain value from the context in which they are applied or contained, and I like or not-like opinions based on that context. And, most importantly in order to answer my own post, all opinions cannot be treated equally without treating all contexts equally. Because contexts are not equal, and are impossible to treat equally, opinions cannot and should not be treated equally.

Because I am not subject to all contexts I am also not obligated to listen to all opinions. If I hear an opinion and cannot conceive of a context in which I would like it I am under no obligation to consider the matter further. I do not have the capacity to analyze all contexts (if they are even finite) and I do not have the capicity to evaluate all opinions for any particular context (if they are even finite).

The call to treat all opinions equally, then, is not something I can justify within a theory of value. Can you (within your theory of value)?

2

ok darling

Here is my opnion.

Only God has the insight into the full context of things. And only He is fit to value opinions.

I think opinions we make are as much built on personal truths and tastes, as on facts.

We are not machines so we mix feelings to the facts we recieve.

Offcourse if we are dealing with opinions on specific matters like, whether or not to use gold as a conductor, I would value more the opinion of a chemical engineer than say a gardener.

Lets exchange the gardener for an accountant. Their opinions of the matter is now based on different approaches towards it. There it is where my own opinion comes in; Do I want to produce an expensive quality conductor or do I want to make it cheaper but with less conductability.
That’s when greed comes in. How will I make more money.

When greed enters the equation it is hard to make a valid judgement on opinions.

So I guess for me all opinions should be treated equally.

3

I think your opinion that all opinions are not equal is bs. :smiley:

4

Do people really think this? I’m an American, and I’ve never once had the impression that this was in any form a part of the “American way”, and I would be shocked if I learned that this is a common belief.

It seems quite self evident that not all opinions are created equal, and I can’t really see a debate at all here. If something is wrong with your heart, you’re not going to ask your mechanic’s opinion; if something is wrong with your transmission, you’re not going to ask your doctor’s opinion.

Certainly everyone has a right to their opinion, but that’s another thing entirely from claiming that every opinion is of equal worth, which I can’t realistically see anyone of any reasonable amount of sense believing. But maybe that’s just my opinion.

5

Perhaps I’m merely elitist, but I’ve long been of the opinion that some opinions are better than others. :smiley:

After all, if the only criteria of whether an opinion is valid is whether you like it (not using the OP’s “like” but the general terM), how does one actually judge the worth of anything? Any policy, academic or judicial decision is based on judging the merits of conflicting opinions. I’m not objectivist (far from it) but there arises questions about how society could ever function were everything to be subjective.

(I if I thought that opinions are more valid the more informed people hold them, would I be an intersubjectivist?)

6

The only place I can think of where all opinions are equal is at the ballot box.

[sub]…and even there I’m not sure that they ought to be treated as such…[sub]

7

I think you are making it much more complex than it needs to be.

I believe that when people refer to all opinions having value, what they probably really mean is that all persons have value, therefore their opinions should be listened to and given consideration.

At least, I hope that’s what they mean. I have argued before, on these very boards, that the idea of all opinions being of equal value is ludicrous. They obviously are not, that’s just silly.

stoid

8

After thinking about it, i think i would have to agree on the context theory. If you are a gardener, then your opinion will be more valuable about gardening than if you asked an accountant. Someone else said this, but this is the jist of it i think.

9

Some opinions are wrong.

Some are correct, but irrelevant.

Some opinions were once insightful, and are now hopelessly outdated.

Opinions are not equal.

Equality itself is a mathematical term, which never accurately describes relationships in the field of human relations.

Even people are not equal.

But the right of people to have opinions is an essential prerequisite of freedom. The right of people to have, and freely voice utterly idiotic opinions is necessary so that liberty can be realized. The prolific dung heap that is public opinion is the fertile field in which liberty and freedom can grow.

So, if we are to have a social convention with regards to opinions, that convention must be that opinions are to be treated as equal and that society as a whole must tolerate each and all of them. However snickering is allowed, since it is just another opinion.

Professional opinions are the same as any other type, except that they cost more.

Tris

“Cabbage: A familiar kitchen-garden vegetable about as large and wise as a man’s head.” ~ Ambrose Bierce ~