You are Entitled to Your Opinion But That Does Not Make It Right
Why the Modern Fetishisation of “Respecting Opinions” is Undermining Reason and morality
There is a popular sentiment echoed in classrooms, offices, pubs and social media comment threads: “Everyone is entitled to their opinion.” On the surface it seems like a benign or even noble declaration. It may even be seen as a celebration of individual liberty and democratic discourse. But beneath that surface lies a dangerous equivocation, one that has eroded the foundations of reasoned debate, intellectual integrity and even moral responsibility.
I once wrote on a social media thread:
“My acknowledgement of your right to your opinions does not mean that your opinions are right. The equivocation of this word “right” has caused endless grief by ascribing the notion of “not wrong” to all cretinous ideas that any halfwit dreams up.”
This has grown increasingly relevant and more controversial in a world where the line between freedom of thought and freedom from scrutiny has become hopelessly blurred.
At the heart of this confusion is a lexical trickster with multiple meanings. It is the word “right”. It can mean morally just, legally protected or factually correct. In everyday speech, we flip between these meanings without noticing. But when used carelessly or disingenuously, this equivocation becomes a weapon. People conflate the right to hold an opinion with the rightness of the opinion itself.
The result? Every imbecilic idea, every half-baked belief and every morally repugnant worldview is cloaked in a protective aura of “validity,” simply because someone feels it is “right”.
This did not happen overnight. The seeds were sown by a cultural shift that can be traced back, at least in part, to postmodernism. What began as a useful critique of grand narratives and rigid dogmas evolved into a kind of epistemic free-for-all where every claim is treated as equally “true” from a certain perspective. From the later Wittgenstein and the idea that meaning is use to the sprawling relativism of postmodern thought, we slowly slid into a swamp where questioning someone’s truth is now equated with oppression.
Riding on this wave for decades are the self-styled gurus and unqualified therapists have eagerly capitalised on the confusion between respecting a person’s right to an opinion and validating the opinion itself. They preach slogans like “live your truth” and “your feelings are never wrong”, not out of care for their audiences but to monetise their insecurities. By telling people that all their thoughts and emotions are inherently valid and beyond question, they create a ready market of loyal and self-deluded clients desperate for affirmation.
This is not empowerment; it is exploitation. It encourages people to cling to falsehoods, to reject growth and self-correction and ultimately to wall themselves off from reality, all whilst funnelling money into the pockets of these merchants of validation who peddle these comforting lies. In the end, it breeds greater harm, often results in broken relationships, poor decisions, self delusions and a society increasingly divorced from truth itself.
As a consequence we now live in a world where simply challenging another’s opinion, no matter how ignorant or harmful, is seen as intolerant, closed-minded or even disrespectful. But let us be clear, respecting a person’s right to hold an opinion does not obligate me to accept, affirm or remain silent about that opinion, especially if it is dangerous, dishonest or destructive.
And if that opinion justifies harm, whether to individuals, groups or society at large, I believe we have an additional moral obligation to oppose it. Not with violence or censorship but with clear, reasoned critique and the courage to say: “You’re wrong, and here’s why.”
This is particularly urgent in an age of deliberate misinformation and pathological self-absorption where therapy-speak and pseudo-psychological pablum are used not to heal but to enable. I have a particular contempt for motivational gurus and Instagram therapists who exploit this fallacy for profit. Their message is seductive: “Your truth is valid. You’re not wrong. You’re just misunderstood.” It may feel good but it is a con. The purpose of truth is not validation; it is alignment with reality.
This is not to say that we should impose orthodoxy or silence dissent. Quite the opposite. The health of a free society depends on open debate and the contest of ideas. But a contest implies that some ideas are better than others, i.e. more coherent, more truthful, more ethical. Tolerating all opinions is not the same as treating them all as equal.
Some strongly argue that this is limiting free speech and human rights. Free speech is essential to a functioning and healthy society but the modern fetish for “free speech absolutism”, the belief that all speech must be protected at all times, regardless of content or consequence, is both naive and dangerous.
Speech is not some ethereal act without impact; it shapes beliefs, stokes fears, legitimises violence and spreads falsehoods. Ideas are not harmless simply because they are spoken. A society that refuses to recognise the real-world consequences of misinformation, incitement and hate will not remain free for long. It will rot from within.
The absolutist view confuses a necessary principle (freedom to speak) with an impossible fantasy (freedom from responsibility). Freedom of speech must coexist with accountability. Words can inspire revolutions but they can also fuel genocides. To pretend otherwise is not a brave defence of liberty; it is the abdication of moral and civic responsibility disguised as principle.
Freedom of speech is neither freedom from judgment nor is it a blank cheque to poison the well of public life. Lies destroy lives. When harmful, deceitful or dehumanising ideas are spread without challenge, they do not merely “exist”, they metastasise like tumour. They warp public discourse, corrode trust and ultimately justify actions that cause real suffering. A society unwilling to draw any line between open debate and deliberate harm is not defending freedom. It dismantles the very structures that make freedom possible.
Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights HR that "everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference" and "everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice". The version of Article 19 in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights later amends this by stating that the exercise of these rights carries "special duties and responsibilities" and may "therefore be subject to certain restrictions" when necessary "for respect of the rights or reputation of others or "the protection of national security or public order, or of public health or morals".
There is nothing noble about letting nonsense fester unchallenged. There is nothing enlightened about staying silent in the face of lies. And there is nothing respectful about letting dangerous ideas go unchecked under the banner of “everyone’s entitled to their opinion.” A society that tolerates everything, including the agents of its own destruction, does not survive. It collapses, hollowed out by cowardice pretending to be virtue.
Yes, you are entitled to your opinion. But do not mistake that for entitlement to have it accepted, respected or left unchallenged. Rights end where harm begins. And if your opinion causes harm, do not be surprised or get offended when others exercise their right and sometimes their duty to say “no, you are wrong.”