All Opinions are Not Equal

By Jane Gilgun
Professor, University of Minnesota, Twin Cities, USA
Some of my graduate social work students surprised me when
they said with evident sincerity that all opinions are of equal
value. The basis of their belief was fairness: we have to treat
everyone the same. I asked if opinions that lead to harm have the
same value as opinions that lead to the promotion of the wellbeing of others or that are neutral in their effects. They said of
course not. As we continued to talk, I wondered if any of their
teachers had discussed guidelines for evaluating opinions.
Later, I thought that the value of first, do no harm, the
value of compassion, and the values that are part of the National Association of Social
Workers are good candidates for the foundation for evaluating opinions.
Do No Harm
Do no harm is the value that underlie all moral systems. For example, it is
foundational to medical ethics. With this value, there is no obligation to do good. We must
refrain from doing harm. This value does not state that doing good cannot motivate us, but
we are obliged not to harm others.
Protection of Life
Related to do no harm is another foundational value, which is the protection of life.
When we allow this value to guide us, we can do nothing that harms the life and life
chances of others. This value appears to obligate us to take action when we see the wellbeing of another harmed, but it also does not appear to require the active promotion of the
well-being of others. This value is the basis of the guideline that most social work
professionals follow: safety first. In situations where people are struggling, our first job is
to ensure that everyone is safe, ourselves included.
Compassion
Compassion, however, obliges us to actively promote the well-being of others. Do

no harm and the protection of life are part of compassion. Compassion has other
components. The core ideas include empathy, or the principle to walk a mile in the shoes of
others, and the golden rule: treat others as you would like to be treated. As Rabbi Hillel
said more than 2000 years ago, "That which is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor.
That is the whole Torah; the rest is commentary. The Torah is Jewish law composed of the
first five books of the Jewish scriptures.
The opening paragraph of the Charter for Compassion, an international movement
that promotes social well-being, provides much to think about.
The principle of compassion lies at the heart of all religious, ethical and spiritual
traditions, calling us always to treat all others as we wish to be treated ourselves.
Compassion impels us to work tirelessly to alleviate the suffering of our fellow
creatures, to dethrone ourselves from the centre of our world and put another there,
and to honour the inviolable sanctity of every single human being, treating
everybody, without exception, with absolute justice, equity and respect
(http://charterforcompassion.org/the-charter).
Compassion obligates us to think about others as we consider actions to take. We are not
the centers of our own worlds. Our freedom stops where the freedom of others begins. We
consider the effects of our actions on the well-being of others.
Dignity and Worth
The Charter for Compassion includes many other values besides do no harm, the
protection of life, and the golden rule. Dignity and worth of every person is implied in the
Charter. Dignity and worth is identified as a core value in the NASW Code of Ethics. The
Code connects socially responsible self-determination to dignity worth. Actions guided
by these values result in behaviors that treat each person in a caring and respectful
manner, while also giving attention to individual differences and preferences that often
are connected to ethnic and racial identities.
Self-determination guides us away from trying to tempt, cajole, force, or manipulate
others and instead seeks to provide opportunities to others to have freedom of choice,
which is a synonym for self-determination. In respecting self-determination, we also bring
into play the values already discussed. Thus, there are times when we have to enforce
limits on self-determination. This happens when the actions of others or ourselves are

likely to harm others or have harmed others. We use the means available to us to set limits,
always putting into play the values of do no harm ourselves, safety, compassion, and
dignity and worth.
Social Justice
Social justice is part of most peoples value system and is also in the NASW Code of
Ethics. Social justice is based on the recognition of our common humanity and our equality.
The idea that what affects one person affects all is part of the idea of social justice. The
values already discussed, such as dignity and worth, do no harm, safety, and compassion
are part of social justice. Synonyms for social justice include fairness, such as the fair
distribution of opportunity, income, and political power. Social justice is active promotion
of the well-being of others, often with special attention to those who are most vulnerable
and left out of fair distributions of opportunities, income, and political power.
Concerns for social justice leads us to stand up to systems that do not distribute
goods and services fairly. The homeless, the poor, exploited workers, survivors of violence,
members of racial and ethnic minority groups are or often are at the receiving end of unfair
systems. Advocacy and policy changes are required so that many classes of people have
equal opportunity, fair distribution of goods and services, and are treated with dignity and
worth.
Open-Mindedness
Open-mindedness means that we base our opinions, thoughts, and perceptions of
others on all available information. We dont only seek information that supports what we
already think. We consider information and values that might undermine what we think
and believe. Open-mindedness leads complex thinking. An example of complex thinking is
to be supportive of police, to mourn their deaths when they are victims of violence, and to
also hold them accountable when they cross the line into acts of violence that are not selfdefense.
Synonyms of open-mindedness are impartiality, even-handedness, and unbiased.
Being open-minded requires capacities to think critically. Critical thinking means that we
base what we think and believe on evidence, that we seek evidence that might contradict
what we think, and that we are even-handed in our representation of information that is
contrary to our beliefs.

When we disagree with positions that others take, we represent these positions
fairly, we based our disagreements on principles, and we provide the basis of our own
perceptions. Often the principles we apply to the positions of others are based on the
values that Ive discussed in this article. We apply these same principles to our own beliefs
and opinions.
Not-Knowing
Not-Knowing is a meditative state. Many people practice meditation. When they do,
their experience is in soft-focus. They are open to experiences of various sorts, such as of
nature, relationships, conflicts past or present, and dreams for the future. What we know
and believe is in suspension. We trust inner selves to the point where we let ourselves flow
with whatever happens. In these states of suspensions, all kinds of new and wonderful
things can happen. This includes new understandings and insights, new desires to seek
more information about issues that puzzle us, and a sense of adventure and desire for
meaning and purpose.
When we leave the meditative state and reflect back on what we experience, we
often have a deepened appreciation of our own value as human beings and the value of
other person. Not-knowing may be the foundation of the values that Ive discussed in this
article. Not-knowing appears to lead not only to deepened appreciations but also to actions
that we mindfully take to live the values that Ive discussed.
Discussion
In this section of essay, I elaborate on points made earlier. One topic is good
intentions. As much as we want to be ethical human beings, we sometimes hurt others.
When the hurt is unintentional, we often want nothing more to let the other person know
that. The other topic is a brief discussion of what the word ethics means.
Good Intentions
The value of doing no harm leads to reflections on actions that, despite good
intentions, hurt others. Hurting others is contrary to the values discussed in this article.
When we hurt others, compassion, dignity and worth, and the other values obligate us to
first address the harm. We discuss the harmful consequences of actions and not at first
explain what our intentions were (See Hardy, below).

The following are guidelines for addressing the unintentional hurt that we have
caused. First, we have to listen and hear. We cant allow our shame, guilt, and
defensiveness deafen us to the hurt. We must allow them the space to tell us what our
actions have meant to them. Once we understand that we have hurt someone, we can say
something like, Im sorry that I said/did something that was hurtful to you. Do not move
on. Pause. Give the other person space to respond. Make the space between you a safe one.
Remember the value of safety first. Other people are unlikely to be vulnerable with you if
they do not feel safe.
Listen with an open heart. You may use short phrases to maintain connection and
safety when the timing seems right. Helpful phrases include I understand, I didnt think
about the consequences, and I hope you can accept my apology. The goal is repair and
the rebuilding of trust. Our body language probably means as much if not more than what
we say during the conversation. Our future actions are important. Whether our behaviors
change and we become trustworthy shapes whether we have repaired the relationship.
It is important for us not to explain our intentions at the time of the hurt. The prime
issue is the hurt and not our intentions. The people we hurt may have less power than we
do. For example, children and young people have less power than adults. Old people,
especially those who seem frail, have less power than younger, healthy people. Bosses
have more power than workers. Men often have more socially-endowed power than
women.
When we tell them or they guess that our intentions were good and we feel shame
and guilt, they make take care of us and put aside their own hurt. In these situations, for the
sake of compassion and fairness, we bring the conversation around to the hamr we have
caused. We can say our harmful actions were unintentional when they other person is
ready to hear it.
Ethics
The appraisal of opinions falls within the realm of ethics. Ethics in turn are involved
in identifying, developing, and appraising moral principles and how these principles help
persons make decisions about whether actions promote the good for self, others, and the
common good. Synonyms for ethics include a system of moral principles, rules of conduct
or moral principles that particular groups endorse such as medical or Christian ethics,

moral precepts or rules of conduct that individuals hold and groups of people may share,
and a branch of philosophy that deals with values related to the right and wrong of human
conduct and the motives that underlie the actions (Dictionary.com,
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ethics)
Summary
This article provided guidelines for evaluating opinions. Everyone has a right to
their opinions, but all opinions are not equal. Thoughtful application of the ideas discussed
in this essay help in evaluating opinions. Opinions that are unfair and harm people are not
equal to opinions that are fair and that promote well-being.
References
Code of Ethics of the National Association of Social Workers.
http://www.socialworkers.org/pubs/code/code.asp
Defining critical thinking. The Critical Thinking Community.
http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/defining-critical-thinking/766
Gilgun, Jane F. The yellow brick road of not-knowing. Second Journey.
http://www.secondjourney.org/itin/09_Fall/Gilgun_09Fall.htm
Hardy, Kenneth V. Kenneth V. Hardy on multiculturalism and psychotherapy.
Psychotherapy. net. http://www.psychotherapy.net/interview/kenneth-hardy
Judaism 101. http://www.jewfaq.org/sages.htm
Robinson, Matthew. What is social justice? Department of government and justice
studies. Appalachian State University. http://gjs.appstate.edu/social-justice-and-humanrights/what-social-justice
About the Author
Jane F. Gilgun, PhD, LICSW, is a professor, School of Social Work, University of
Minnesota, Twin Cities, USA. She does research on the meanings of violence to perpetrators
and therefore has spent many years thinking about unintentional harm and the
foundations of ethical behaviors.