Summary Of No, You Re Not Entitled To You Opinion By Patrick Stokes

During the first week of class, we discussed the article, “No, you’re not entitled to you opinion” by Patrick Stokes. Just the title of the article interested me, as it's commonplace for people to say “Well, I’m entitled to my opinion” during a discussion or argument. Stokes points out that "Well, I'm entitled to my opinion" is often used to end a discussion or argument without having to further explain your justification for your beliefs. He makes the following important distinction; while you may be entitled to say what you believe, you are not entitled to have your opinion taken as seriously as an expert in the given field. There are different types of opinions and they can be categorized. The type of opinions Stokes describes can be put into two general categories. They are:

1.
Tastes and preferences
2. Views based in certain expertise

Things such as your favorite movie, favorite color, or favorite type of ice cream are based on your own tastes and preferences.
People can be considered experts in their own tastes or preferences. According to Stokes, opinions based on your own tastes and preferences are opinions you are entitled to. Opinions about bigger issues, such as the right course of treatment for a cancer patient, can not be based on tastes and preferences. The opinion of an oncologist, who has medical training and experience, cannot carry the same weight as the opinion formed by a family member who does not hold equal medical training or experience. You're entitled to opinions about tastes and preferences. You aren't entitled to opinions about things not based on your personal opinions and preferences. In cases for bigger issues, expertise matters. You can't hold opinions as equal, or say they deserve to be treated equally when the knowledge, expertise level and experience level are not equal. Someone can have an opinion about how cancer patients should proceed with their medical care, but they aren't entitled to it, and their opinion should not be given equal consideration to the opinion of an
expert.

Growing up in the extremely liberal place that I did, Seattle, Washington, I was raised with the belief that everyone is entitled to their opinion. Two people may have different experiences that led them to believe what they believe today, and that’s okay, everyone should have the right to have their opinion heard, respected and be equally considered. That’s why this article really grabbed my attention, just the title was something so against my beliefs. But upon actually reading the article and processing what Stokes was saying, I reconsidered my stance on the topic up for debate and whether I am, in fact, entitled to my opinion. It was something I hadn’t really stopped and thought about before. But while reading the article, I switched my beliefs. I agree that there are different types of opinions, and that some opinions should be taken more seriously than others, based on who is voicing them. For example, with the climate change debate, someone who has devoted their life to the science of climate change, and someone who has just read some selective opinions of others and states that climate change isn’t happening, obviously shouldn’t have their opinions considered equally. With situations like that one, there is a clear right and wrong opinion. It does not mean that you aren’t “entitled” to literally say what you think, you just aren't entitled to having your opinion given the same about of weight in a debate as someone else who is a qualified expert. After reading the article, I’ve learned the important distinction between being entitled to your opinion and having your opinion taken as seriously as an expert. I agree with Stokes, that no, we are not always entitled to our opinions.