The right to an opinion

IT seems to be an unwritten canon of contemporary society that prides itself in the kind of democracy that it has engendered that everyone has the right to an opinion. Of course, everything has the right to his or her thoughts — but some thoughts entitle you to a decent place in society, others land you in mental asylums. So, not all thoughts are of equal value and thoughts can have different consequences.

Thanks to social media, we now know that many have taken on the role of opinion-maker. Some are followed; others are ignored; sometimes rightly, sometimes unjustly. And we are awash in opinions. Woe to him who lives by opinions because these must be particularly vexing times; woe to those too who arrogantly refuse to heed the opinions of others because doing so can be dangerous. A physician who advances the opinion that you have a malignancy better be heeded seriously even if it is only an opinion. But it is always wise to seek a second opinion.

Scholastic philosophers contrasted “opinion” with “certitude” because while they held that certitude was maintaining a proposition that is true and known to be true, an opinion was a proposition advanced accompanied by the “radical fear” that one was in error. The second part of the thoughtful formulation of the Scholastics seems to have receded into oblivion for many are they who advance their opinions — no matter how outlandish and bizarre — as solemn dogma. Following from the Scholastic definition of an “opinion” was the becoming reticence that made one careful about advancing an opinion and the openness to correction and even to the complete demolition of what one advances.

Opinions merely entertained and opinions expressed are of course different, but many opinions are expressed, and in a country like ours, no matter how insulting, silly or criminal the opinion may be, our capaciousness for human folly will always intone the quasi-legal maxim: “Everyone is entitled to his opinion.” There are times, however, that opinions may not be expressed and one will not be excused in the name of liberty. German law, for one, forbids the opinion that the Holocaust never happened. Opinions about the king and his family in Thailand are absolutely forbidden and can send one to the slammer. Libelous statements expressed as opinions cannot be excused when they violate the laws that penalize libel.

And while we are on the topic of libel, I shall reiterate my opinion: Libel should remain criminal. It is the only deterrent against the recklessness that can lead to the ruination of character and reputation, to the degradation of another person — living, but especially dead. When I say: “I think your deceased father was a thief,” I should not be able to hide behind the veneer of the freedom to express an opinion. One of the presumptions of communication is that what you utter, even as an opinion, has grounds. Making of libel or oral defamation a mere tort so that only damages may be levied against a tortfeasor does not do justice to the unfairness of an opinion that damages my reputation or anyone else’s. Opinions are easy to entertain, and as easy to express. Reputations take a lifetime to build and a good name, quite a long time to earn. A libelous remark by a reporter or a columnist of an enterprise with hefty coffers will cost loose change!

And in moral theology, some opinions are sinful — even if nothing is done about them. Entertaining the opinion that adulterous relations with my neighbor’s wife would be thrilling — or allowing such an opinion to entertain me! — would violate the code of holiness. It is the “adultery in the heart” that the Gospel very clearly condemns.