Distinguishing fact from opinion: a critical skill as the election approaches

As we close in on election day, President Trump touts his "plan" to defeat COVID-19.  Sounds like a fact, doesn't it?  Meanwhile, Joe Biden says Trump doesn't have the requisite leadership skills to govern.  Sounds like an opinion, doesn't it?  

Distinguishing fact from opinion is a critical skill not only in choosing a candidate but also in finding our way through life in general.  Professor Justin McBrayer thinks so anyway.  I received an email from the good professor yesterday, reminding me of a dialog we had a few years ago.  McBrayer wrote a piece in the New York Times about how his second-grader was being subjected to flawed reasoning on the matter.  I responded with a blog post that I shared with him.

My post which is printed in full below doesn't rise to the level of McBrayer's new book, Beyond Fake News: Finding the Truth in a World of Misinformation.  You can find out more about the book on his website here or in a five-minute video clip here.  The book is available at places like Amazon and Barnes and Noble, but you can also use the author discount code FLR40 on the publisher’s site to bring the paperback price down to $27.96.

How to tell right from wrong... It ain't easy!

Do your kids think there are “moral facts”?  Are there circumstances where it is okay to lie, cheat or steal?

Philosopher and college professor Justin McBrayer concerns himself with such questions and was upset enough about what his second grader is being taught in school to air his opinion in the NY Times.  He discovered that the common core curriculum, by its definitions of fact vs. opinion, teaches our children that values (or value claims as he describes them) are not facts.  They are opinions.  

Connecting the lessons his son is being taught in the second grade to cheating on college campuses, he observes “that the overwhelming majority of college freshmen in their classrooms view moral claims as mere opinions that are not true or are true only relative to a culture.”

I sent the article to my brother who is a bit closer to this issue than I.  He has worked on education issues with Georgia’s state government and his wife spent her career teaching grammar school.  He expressed amazement that “parents of grade school children extend small things into the cause of the world’s problems.”

He’s probably right.  But, there was something about Professor McBrayer’s argument that stuck in my head.  Then, it came to me. What’s missing in his essay is any mention of a social contract, an implicit agreement among members of society who embrace a common set of values. “All Men Are Created Equal”, for example, is part of a value system that forms the basis of a social contract.  In a literal sense, it is not a fact. Some people are created smarter or stronger or prettier.  However, the statement — which is really meant to convey “All Men Have Equal Rights” — drives legislation and government enforcement of equal opportunity laws.  That is part of the social contract that we accept prima facie.

I agree with Professor McBrayer that it’s appropriate to separate mere opinions from value statements.  "Copying homework assignments is wrong" is a statement of our values and a good lesson to teach our children.

However, children’s values are learned more in their activities and day-to-day experiences than in classrooms.  Kid’s taught to play golf are charged with scoring and adhering to the rules.  There are valuable lessons in this activity that have nothing to do with fact vs. opinion.  They have to do with personal responsibility and how we treat others.  It’s a social contract of a sort.  

Another example of how children learn comes from comparing parents’ behavior to what they say.  You can tell your kid that it’s wrong to lie.  But, they learn that lying is part of the fabric of society.  If Mom tells someone how nice he or she looks and then tells Dad how awful that person looks, the kid learns that - at least in that situation - it’s okay to lie.  Ultimately, they figure out that an overwhelming number of people cheat on their taxes or steal office supplies from their employers. 

Teaching kids not to lie, cheat or steal is important.  And, Professor McBrayer is right when he says, “consistency demands that we acknowledge the existence of moral facts.”

However, in a world where the social contract is constantly evolving, distinguishing fact from opinion is an important skill. People’s values go well beyond clear rules about what is right and what is wrong and our perspective is constantly changing. Witness the change in people’s attitudes about gay marriage, for example.  

Moreover, I contend that many “moral claims” are relative to culture.   In a complex global community, moral relativism is required to address society’s larger issues.  

In politics… How much should we tax the rich to provide for the poor?

In medicine… Should we administer an experimental drug to a critically ill patient?

In business… Are we treating our customers ethically?

In foreign affairs… When should we send troops to defend another nation?

In a post a few years ago (From Deadly Sin to Virtue), I quoted Barry Schwartz, a Swarthmore professor and co-author of “Practical Wisdom:  the Right Way to Do the Right Thing”.  He compares finding what’s right to jazz improvisation.  The notes are on the page but the musicians play a variation that results in beautiful music. 

In American society, our response to people and institutions that are unprincipled is to create rules to govern their behavior.  But, that doesn’t work.  What we need, Schwartz asserts, is the moralwill to do the right thing and the skill to figure out what that is. 

Let’s figure out how to teach that lesson to our children.

WHO WILL LEAD? 

Am I a libertarian or a utilitarian?

Evan Mandery, a professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, recently wrote about his experience teaching an ethics course based on Michael Sandel’s book, “Justice: What’s the Right Thing To Do?” (which I’ve read and loved).  He taught the course for a semester at Appalachian State in Boone, NC, thinking he might find a difference in how people make ethical judgments in the Deep South when compared to Manhattan-based John Jay.  He didn’t.

While exploring how people make those judgments, one student stood out – one he describes as a libertarian.  Mandery tells us he believes the student would “sacrifice himself for the greater good” and observes that “people are too willing to prioritize what’s politically expedient over fundamental values.”  I confess I find his view confusing as sacrificing oneself for the greater good sounds more utilitarian than libertarian.  It was John Stuart Mill, the utilitarian ethicist, who defined the “greatest happiness principle” as “a moral action that maximizes utility, or happiness, for the greatest number of people.”  If that’s utilitarianism, wouldn’t one who sacrifices oneself for the greater good be utilitarian?  

Lately, I’ve taken to calling myself a libertarian. It’s how I express my distaste for the two predominant political parties without engaging in a long-winded explanation.  It has the added advantage of not having to defend policies or candidates affiliated with one or the other.  

But, that’s an expedient position rather than a principled one.  The truth is I am more pragmatic than dogmatic, arguing for the action I believe benefits society most.  So, for example, I would never argue that businesses should not be regulated as a true libertarian might.  To argue in favor of the chaos that would result from the complete elimination of regulation is, in my view, both lazy and impractical.

So, am I a utilitarian?

French economist Thomas Piketty has observed that elites may be divided between the “Brahmin left” (Silicon Valley) and the “merchant right” (Oil & Gas magnates).  Each has captured one of the major parties leaving out those with little money or education.  And, so, both Donald Trump and Elizabeth Warren gain favor among them by espousing the theory that the system is “rigged.”

I reject the excuses of declaring the system rigged.  Sure, moneyed interests pour cash into our political system.  And, yes, those interests don’t much care about you and me.  But, at the end of the day, those of us in the middle-class are just trying to keep a roof over our heads, food on the table and enjoy ourselves with what’s left over.  The system, rigged or not, is what we learn to deal with.  In that sense, we – those who occupy the middle-class suburbs of most cities – might be libertarians.  We take responsibility for our own families and our own outcomes.  

So, am I a libertarian?   

WHO WILL LEAD?