To Each His Own
Asserting one’s right to personal preference, a perfectly reasonable thing to do when determining whether the blue Flowers are a better choice than the red ones when having to make up with my wife on account of my wondering eyes because who knows if big butts are better than small butts. “To each his own” has its place in the world of real things, but it all too often gets miss used as if it has the super power to terminate an argument and validate the position of the one using it.
Opinions & Preferences
There is a difference between personal preferences and opinions so far as they relate to facts. It’s become common practice to use “Each to his own” as validation of opinions rather than preference, and its rarely used for the sole purpose of highlighting a difference in position. As in; we are all entitled to our opinions, therefore my assertion is True by virtue my preference to the Opinion. It is not reasonable to make this kind of assertion, especially when such opinions are in direct contradiction with established facts or outright false. Being of the opinion that the flying spaghetti monster exists is simply wrong, one’s preference to the opinion has no bearing on the reality of the argument. Citing the right to hold the opinion does nothing to change the fact that the flying spaghetti monster does not exist.
Why Do This
The phrase is most commonly brought up when one person dismisses another’s position as flawed or false. Being in the latter, I suspect that we sometimes default “To Each His Own” possibly as a result of exhausting all reasonable arguments for the notions we hold. Some might also use this phrase as a form of diplomacy without directly conceding their position or invalidating that of another. Others incorrectly assume that it serves as a legitimate argument in favor of what ever point they trying to make.
The reality is that common experience simply doesn’t require that we go around pointing out fallacies in thought at every given opportunity. So very few have their stock in making reasonable arguments for the ideals, values or opinions they hold. This statement gives us an easy way out of dealing with the burden of proof, this can also have the unintended consequence of bringing opinions into the realm of personal preference. This makes it especially hard to reject a claim without it becoming an attack on character. Using this phrase when trying to make reasonable assertions about reality is a gross miss representation of the intended purpose of the statement. I would imagine that there are far more constructive ways of dealing with these kinds of differences, but it would always require one party to concede something. Our inability to do this can only lead to the inevitable stale mate that “To Each His Own” attempts to induce. Its entirely fair to say that the phrase has no place in reasonable argument as it really does not qualify anything