Zachary Noyce: Learning to respect other opinions

I'm willing to listen to just about any opinion, so long as it agrees with mine. Sadly, such a doctrine seems the rule for discourse on campus and in the world.

It doesn't much matter if you're in a history seminar or a linguistics recitation; once or twice it will get out of hand. We know the scene all too well. Someone raises their hand and comments on a hot-button issue -- whether that issue is doctor-assisted suicide, American foreign policy or Nipplegate doesn't much matter. Suddenly, another student fires back a contrary argument. My estimation is that it usually takes 3 ping-pongs for the discussion to deteriorate from "the conflation of political, economic and intellectual movements ... " to shouts of "Elitist!" or "Bigot!"

Usually, the exchange is put in the past soon enough by the instructor who courageously ends the skirmish before only the Jaws of Life can, but in those few fateful seconds when diplomacy fails, it becomes evident that there is something seriously wrong with the way that we discuss issues and our opinions.

Of course, this problem is not confined to seminar rooms. In everyday conversation, I find myself declaring my opinion when I should be explaining it. Rather than discussing why I think I'm right, all too often I tell other people why they're wrong. I may convince someone once in a while, but mostly people just resent my hostility after such a confrontation. Sure, "very persuasive" techniques might work for the mafia, but I don't even own brass knuckles.

After toilet-training and how many licks it takes to get to the center of a Tootsie Roll pop, there are few lessons in life as important as learning to value others' opinions. It's all too easy to know your opinion, learn opposing opinions and then discredit those opinions. Such an approach does little, if anything, to develop an understanding of dissenting viewpoints.

I am a firm believer that people's opinions are a product of their morals, not the clarity or oversights in their perception of reality (except in the case of Princeton or Mets fans). With so many potential beliefs on so many issues, no two people can have identical opinions. In such a climate, it is important to remember that different viewpoints than yours exist precisely because they adopt different -- not inferior -- morals. If you take a moment to consider most any salient issue, there is a certain nobility to be appreciated in every position a person could take.

One of the greatest demonstrations of a failure to understand dissenting opinions is evident simply in the terminology surrounding abortion. Abortion rights advocates call themselves pro-choice and their opposition anti-choice. Meanwhile, supporters of the anti-abortion movement call themselves pro-life and their opposition pro-abortion, or even anti-life. Such polarization is as unhealthy as it is inflammatory. Each side regards the issue as intensely moral but refuses to grant the other side their deserved moral credibility.

Campus discourse has become more concerned than ever with the fire's heat than with the fire's light. In an environment where heat is so abundant and light so scarce, it seems we all stumble around in the dark, burnt.

These college years are supposed to be a time for intellectual curiosity. This is why we take such broad curricula. This is why we study theories and contrary theories for phenomena and counter-phenomena. To me, it's amazing how quickly we abandon our intellectual curiosity when it leads us somewhere we don't want to be. But frequently, the nobility of our curiosity gives in to the close-mindedness of our opinions.

Coming to an understanding of different opinions is not the hardest thing in the world either. It involves saying, "I see your point," instead of a string of expletives. It is unfortunate that our perception that we're right and everyone else is wrong prevents us from giving other viewpoints their deserved consideration. If we did grant everyone such credibility, not only would that recitation be slightly less annoying, but we'd realize that other people aren't the immoral jerks we too often paint them as.

We don't want to admit the truth because in granting other opinions moral clarity, we believe that we debunk our own. Our opinions should be able to withstand the justification of contrary opinions. So have lunch with someone whose opinion you can't stand and engage in a civil discussion. You'll soon find out that they aren't the soulless hypocrites that your rhetoric called them a week ago.

It doesn't take much -- just talking about why your opinion is different instead of why theirs is wrong.

Then again, you could disagree with me. But then there would be hell to pay.

Zachary Noyce is a freshman in the College from Taylorsville, Utah. The Stormin’ Mormon appears on alternate Fridays.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.