Is an opinion wrong when it goes against the facts?

The opinion you state above is normative, whereas the facts you are citing are descriptive. These are two different categories that cannot directly contradict one another.

Not in my arguments…

But to answer your real question, who should be responsible for feeding said 20,000 people? I’m sorry they are starving but I’m seriously fucking broke.

No. Your opinion is that it’s wrong. The fact that it happens doesn’t say that it’s not wrong.

I don’t really understand your question. How does it, your opinion “go against the facts?” If 20.000 people die from hunger every day, if that is a fact, then you either think it’s wrong or you don’t. You opinion is based on facts.

Sorry, yarnie, but I am also confused. I agree with Lily, and furthermore – how could one have an “opinion” that it’s actually okay for 20,000 people to starve everyday?

I think you meant to ask something else – it just didn’t come right?

Great question about logic. Opinions aren’t wrong or right. For example: My opinion is that I should be travelling the world. Instead I’m working at home.

Conclusions like “Therefore, things should be this way” don’t make claims about the way things have worked out so far or as yet. Rather, they speak to a hypothetical that may or may not exist.

Another example: “I should be able to breathe air!” The fact that I do breathe air hasn’t really been commented on. I’ve simply made a hypothetical statement about what I would expect reality to be like.

@zen I think @ninjacolin answers what I was asking. My questions are often very poorly worded, and usually get modded away.

I like the way your question is worded, if that helps anything. (hopefully it doesn’t hurt, which is equally as likely..)

I’ll show you some arguments that can come from this:
a: it is wrong to let 20,000 people starve to death every single day
b: whatever @YARNLADY believes is wrong never happens in the world
c: therefore, 20,000 people will not starve to death daily.

This argument is considered “Valid” because the conclusion necessarily follows from A and B’s statements. Unfortunately, premise B happens to be (er.. no offense) false. So, we know that the conclusion is unsound even though it is valid in this argument. :(

It gets a little worse though:

a: @YARNLADY believes it is wrong for 20,000 people to starve to death every single day
b: 20,000 people do starve to death every single day
c: therefore, what @YARNLADY considers to be “wrong” does occur daily.

This is unfortunately both valid and sound.

I changed a word above.. I took out the word “let” because there’s an ambigious and assumed premise in there. You’re either saying that everyone alive lets starvation happen or else you’re accusing some particular party, perhaps world governments. I’m going to assume you’re accusing governments rather than every single individual. The argument then becomes:

a: it is wrong to let 20,000 people starve to death every single day
b: the government lets 20,000 people starve to death daily
c: therefore, the government does wrong things.

That is seriously nuts.

Ditto @SavoirFaire

An argument predicated on false premises is not sound. As a consequence, if someone is expressing a subjective opinion justified by factually incorrect premises, then their opinion is faulty.

I don’t understand your starving people example, but yes, if one has an opinion that the sun revolves around the earth, they are wrong.

Not necessarily wrong, but possibly hard to defend, and correct to be ignored. Also, it may well be wrong to take action based on a badly conceived opinion.

As far as the starvation example, though, you are confusing “what goes on in reality” with “what is necessarily right.” Many people hold moral opinions that something going on needs changed, and rightly take action to effect change (see: civil rights movement, for starters). If no one did that, we’d be in a much darker place.

Opinions are really just another viewpoint in a given situation.

A good example comes from the Secret Service or the FBI…...............

Before asking you a question and knowing the truth or facts in a particular situation, an agent asks this question to you…..“did you participate in the armed robbery of the bank?” Before asking you this question, video tapes of the armed robbery implicates you as a participant. You answer, “no, I don’t think so, I was pretty drunk”.

The facts(video tape)has you as an active partner in the armed robbery. You give your opinion that you were drunk and don’t remember.

The facts, in this case, will always override an opinion.

I am always right, god damn it!....

@laureth Thanks. My example was a very poor one, but you have given me a thoughtful answer.

@john65pennington That makes a lot of sense. I like that point of view.