Love them or hate them but the Kummissjoni Ambjent (KA) of the Archdiocese of Malta have proved that they are not afraid to comment on the most controversial matters. Their most recent comment about the “to build or not to build, to dig or not to dig” St John’s controversy is just another example of their interventions.

I particularly liked their conclusion which I reproduce here:

“In conclusion, the KA feels that the whole controversial issue needs to be reviewed from a genuinely sustainable perspective by all quarters, without any fundamentalist stances on any sides … unlike what has transpired in the media. The KA feels that the next logical step is to wait for the publishing of a truly objective EIA (their emphasis) and for the open debatefollowing it. While we appreciate what St John’s Co-Cathedral represents to most of us, we should do our best not to let our emotions cloud up our reasoning, to the detriment of making the right and most sustainable choices in the long-term. Let us not rush into any uninformed decision.”

The KA appeals to all sides not to take “fundamentalist stances”. Such a statement is a non-controversial appeal. It said more. In the opinion of KA “what has transpired in the media” shows that some have taken fundamentalist stances. The KA does not tell us which side took these stances. Going through media reports one would find it rather difficult to accuse the St John’s Co-Cathedral Foundation of taking a fundamentalist stance. There position was “let’s wait for the studies before we decide”. It seems that the swipe is addressed towards some of the environmentalists.

And not without good reason, I hasten to add.

Uninformed decisions

The KA hit the nail on its head. One of the characteristics of contemporary debate in our country is uninformed andun-researched opinions. People phone on radio programmes, write in newspapers and post on blogs about all sorts of subjects without bothering to inform themselves reasonably well before expressing an opinion. People pronounce themselves about the macro workings of global economy without knowing the ABC of its dynamics. Theological subjects of great substance are tackled with the preparation one has had for Confirmation. And so on and so forth.

Some journalists write one sourced stories not bothering to check their facts and not giving all sides to their readers, viewers or listeners. The number of journalists who believe that they are greater than their stories or who believe that they are the story is on the increase.

I have the feeling that we have entered a milieu where the motto is: If you know little about a subject speak authoritatively. If you know nothing about it then speak dogmatically.

Perhaps another slogan is equally applicable. I apologise for the great Descartes for spinning his famous dictum. “I think so, therefore it is so”. This seems to be the new dogma. Many believe that they do not have to substantiate their positions; the only thing that they should do is to announce them.

Today many believe that all opinions are equally valid. This is manifestly not so. An informed opinion is clearly more valid than an uninformed one. I put this challenge to those who think that all opinions are equally valid.

What do you do when your heart aches?

If you feel a heart ache – not one of the emotional kind – and ten of your friends tell you that it is nothing serious but a cardiologist who is close by tell you to get some one to rush you to hospital what would you do? Would you say that since all opinions are equally valid the opinion of ten friends is more valid than the opinion of one cardiologist? Hardly.

The belief that all opinions are equally valid or the attitude that “I think so, therefore it is so” leads us on the slippery path of total subjectivism. This frame of mind makes us loose our bearings. Where subjectivism reigns supreme one’s “truth” that ethnic cleansing is a correct ethical behaviour is logically equally valid as the truth that ethnic cleansing is ethically abominable. Only moral disasters can ensure if moral decisions are based on the assumption that something becomes morally good because someone thinks or feels it to be morally good.

Does the above mean that only the few should express an opinion in public? Manifestly not so, I say. Everyone has some form or other of expertise. The different life experiences we acquire make us competent to express opinions on all sorts of topics. We can also read and educate ourselves on topics outside our direct experience. These two elements are the basic of informed discussions. But there are topics which require more study and reflection. In such cases let the studies be made and then we comment later in the light of our experiences and other knowledge we possess.

This does not apply only to whether or not we should build or dig or do neither close to St John’s Co-Cathedral.

Postscript 1

This country is so famous for inadequate after sales service that when I experience the contrary I feel in duty bound to praise it publicly.

A relative of mine had problems with her iron. Quite a problem when there are so many clothes to iron. She went to Homemate of Imriehel to get the thing fixed. Before leaving their premises one of the employees politely asked: Do who have an iron which you can use while we are fixing this one? My relative answered in the negative. The employee than supplied her with a brand new iron which she could use while her iron was being repaired.

Well done Homemate.