“I’m Entitled to My Opinion and It Should Be Respected”
One of the most curious aspects of the modern corporate culture is the need for businesses to present some sort of ethical persona to their customers and the wider market. It is contradictory to say the least to watch such institutions that are by their very nature predatory, espouse a moral stance on social issues such as climate change and equality. Yet, this is something they do regularly, with a straight face and a tin ear. The recent leak of a draft document by SCOTUS to overturn Roe v. Wade has seen several companies take a stance and release press statements both externally and internally. However, an email sent to Sony staff by PlayStation CEO Jim Ryan, has proven more interesting than others. This is mainly due to Ryan reiterating a common “informal fallacy”; that everyone is entitled to their opinion and by default that opinion should be respected.
Ryan stated that Playstation employees, as well as customers are a “multi-faceted and diverse” community who hold “many different points of view”. He went on to say that staff and the company “owe it to each other and to PlayStation’s millions of users to respect differences of opinion among everyone in our internal and external communities. Respect does not equal agreement. But it is fundamental to who we are as a company and as a valued global brand”. The logical flaws in this statement stand out like a sore thumb and it would appear that critical thinking and constructing a sound argument are not part of Jim Ryan’s executive skill set. Mind you, such things are conspicuously absent from our politics and public discourse as well, so why should big business be any different?
Plato established a difference between personal opinion or a commonly held belief (doxa) and provable knowledge (episteme) in his theory of forms, over 2,000 years ago. It is still a viable distinction today. A personal opinion is subjective and often uncertain due to reliance upon interpretation, feelings and other nebulous factors. 1+1=2 is a fact that can be clearly proven. In most functioning democracies, all citizens have a right to hold an opinion irrespective of its veracity or rectitude. But that does not mean that one has a right not to have one’s opinion challenged. There is no legal, ethical or logical obligation to respect another’s opinion. Why for example, should any respect, courtesy or deference be extended to a view couched in bigotry and prejudice? Also why should an opinion that cannot be backed up by facts to establish its validity or merit be afforded some sort of protected status?
All too often the claim that “I’m entitled to my opinion and it should be respected” or similarly, “let us agree to disagree” is a means to try and avoid scrutiny and to account for one’s view. It is a petulant and churlish demand that one’s view is given equal consideration with one that can be substantiated. It seeks to establish false equivalence and if denied, often prompts claims of victimhood. It is the faux argument of choice by those that want to compete with knowledge and expertise, without doing the necessary “due diligence”. Too many people conflate losing an argument with losing the right to argue. Obviously in the case of Jim Ryan’s comments, calls to respect differing opinions is also about “cakeism”; trying to please all customers regardless of their perspective. It is not only an intellectually bankrupt stance but a cynical one. Sadly that seems to be a prevailing trait of modern corporate ideology.
