Stephen Colbert and Philosophy - Aaron Allen Schiller [11]
The point is, thinking from the gut is hardly acceptable in any other discipline; why would it be acceptable in philosophy or politics? Answer: it’s not. You have to give arguments in philosophy and politics just like you do everywhere else. The reason people usually assume thinking from the gut is acceptable in philosophy and politics is because of intellectual impatience—the answers are hard to find. It’s not like science where we can take measurements and make observations to settle disputes. Without a quick way to settle disputes, people get frustrated, throw up their hands, and decide there is no answer—“everyone has a right to their opinion!”
But there are answers to philosophical and political questions—it just takes us a while to get there. You may not see some of the questions you are asking now answered in your lifetime, but we are making progress. We’ve figured out that Plato’s metaphysics is bunk and that theocratic dictatorships are a bad idea. So we’re closer to the philosophical and political truth than we were yesterday; we will be even closer tomorrow. Taking part in philosophy and politics is taking part in a grand, prolonged effort—an effort to find the truth. And since we’re after truth, spouting opinion without argument isn’t going to cut it!
But even if the truth eludes us, truthiness is not an acceptable substitute. We may never answer the “morality of abortion” question but there are good arguments on both sides. Those who put forth those arguments, and answer objections, do have an epistemic right to their opinion. But he who makes no arguments, who does not consider objections, but just believes what he wants because he wants to, has no right to his opinion—even if he agrees with one who does. Thinking from the gut is never allowable.21
This also means, if you continue believing something just because your mom, your church, or your political party told you to, you don’t have a right to that opinion either. If you can’t defend it, you don’t have a right to it. Now, that is not to say that believing something based on someone else’s testimony is wrong. Most of the beliefs we have are based on testimony—the testimony of news anchors, teachers, reference books, media—and most often testimony is a reliable source of justified belief. But if you continue to believe something, despite objections and evidence you can’t dismiss, just because that thing is what your mom always told you—well, in that case, you don’t have a right to that belief. Your mother’s testimony can’t outweigh the evidence. You’re not justified in continuing to hold that belief and no one has a duty to allow you to do so.
Where Do We Go from Here?
So to have a right to my opinion, I just need to put forth an argument?
—Any Given Student, Introduction to Philosophy
Close, but not exactly. It needs to be a good argument.
Well, there are those who argue that some people are born gay. But this is just silly, because we are made in God’s image. So if someone were born gay, that would mean that God is part gay, and he is definitely not. He is one hundred percent hetero. God is all Man. (I Am America, p. 112)
This argument can’t justify Colbert’s position that homosexuals are not born that way; it’s not a good argument. It makes grandiose assumptions (we are made in God’s image), it misconstrues (or at least limits) the meaning of the term “image,” and it assigns a sexual preference to a being with no gender. (I doubt many really think God “the Father” has a reproductive organ.) So Colbert can’t claim to have a right to this belief.
But figuring out who does have a right to his opinion, once arguments start flying around, is difficult. You have to find out who is giving good arguments, who isn’t, and whether there is a reasonable way to settle the issue. I can’t teach that in one chapter. Go take Logic or Critical Thinking. But when you do come across a good argument, don’t be afraid to change your mind. We don’t need