It seems to me that everybody believes that their position is right. If this is the case is there any such thing as wrong? After reading almost all of the posts in here it seems everybody is right. This is a symptom of the entire world. The terrorists are right in the actions they take, conversely the Americans are right in the actions they take. The Jews are right, the Christians are right, the Muslims are right. The Chinese are right, the N. Koreans are right, the UK is right. The cops are right, the criminals are right, and so on. Maybe it is just my limited mental capacity to grasp reality but it seems to me that is everybody is right nothing is wrong.

It seems to me that everybody believes that their position is right. If this is the case is there any such thing as wrong? After reading almost all of the posts in here it seems everybody is right. This is a symptom of the entire world. The terrorists are right in the actions they take, conversely the Americans are right in the actions they take. The Jews are right, the Christians are right, the Muslims are right. The Chinese are right, the N. Koreans are right, the UK is right. The cops are right, the criminals are right, and so on. Maybe it is just my limited mental capacity to grasp reality but it seems to me that is everybody is right nothing is wrong.It's different laws, no one has got the whole truth yet.

People just like to assert their personal position or take on things. Each is able to justify that position and enjoys doing so. Occasionally people post stuff with views that differ from mine but understanding their perspective prevents me from reacting strongly when I encounter similiar views that differ from mine.
Understanding eachothers positions cannot be wrong in itself and each has a conscious to steer their individual ships. The trick is to not steer into someone elses, but to master that, you have to know their position.

peace

c20

That is my point, everyone feels justified that they are right. If this is the case than is anything wrong?

Right and wrong are subjective.

Right and wrong are subjective.

I agree, but what can be done about it? I suppose based on history we'll just continue to blabber until something comes to a head and someone has to start fighting. Is there any chance of reconcilliation or moderation then?

Is there any chance of reconcilliation or moderation then?

Are you personally willling to take an active part in that process?

peace

c20

There is certainly a small chance for diplomacy and understanding among cultures. Even your view that fighting is something to be avoided is a cultural value. Most likely humans will kill themselves off completely unless we can leave each other alone. I guess that means that the only cultures that will survive will either be ones that value tolerance, or the one that values complete domination.

Yeah I suppose there is not much room for middle ground. I would like to see tolerance but most likely it will be domination. It is unfortunate that we are seemingly doomed to repeat our mistakes ad infinitum. It's exhausting.

C20
What do you mean by your post?

It seems to me that everybody believes that their position is right. If this is the case is there any such thing as wrong?

Sort of. All (together) are mostly right in perception; each individually is only partly right in perception. Wrong is mistaking your partial right for the whole right, which no one can monopolize.

Re: If everybody is right, what is wrong?
Nothing. "Right" and "wrong" are subjective. They depend on different values. Different values result from different adaptations to the environment. Environment varies from country to country, from city to city, from individual to individual.

What is this garbage? "Right and wrong" are subjective? What are you speaking of? I STRONGLY hope you mean -just- morally. Morality may have no objective foundation, but truth? Truth is singular and objective. For two reasons:

1. The statement "there is no truth" is logically incoherent. If there are no truths the statement "there is no truth" invalidates itself, as it presumes truth.

2. 1 + 1 = 2 (in the normal meaning of the terms). Litterally trillions of other truthful statements such as this exist.

2. 1 + 1 = 2 (in the normal meaning of the terms). Litterally trillions of other truthful statements such as this exist.

I wouldn't confound mathematical validity and consistency with "truth," which is a concept better applied to the human pursuit of knowledge in the confusion of human affairs.

2. 1 + 1 = 2 (in the normal meaning of the terms). Litterally trillions of other truthful statements such as this exist.

My programmer buddy always laughs when I pull that one out :)

Onefinity:

I wouldn't confound mathematical validity and consistency with "truth," which is a concept better applied to the human pursuit of knowledge in the confusion of human affairs.

Truths found in systems are generally easier to present than the first principles or some other vaguely esoteric principle.

whitewolf:


My programmer buddy always laughs when I pull that one out

Yes, because there would be some programming language where 1 + 1 = something else, right?

Re: If everybody is right, what is wrong?
Nothing. "Right" and "wrong" are subjective. They depend on different values. Different values result from different adaptations to the environment. Environment varies from country to country, from city to city, from individual to individual.


That is my point, since it is so subjective is there any way to reconcile these concepts. With everyone able to justify their "rightness", can a common ground ever be reached? Based on this discussion so far, wrong as a concept is null.

C20
What do you mean by your post?

Well if you have two opposing sides regarding right and wrong and you yourself wish that both parties would be reconcilled independantly of their viewpoints, then you yourself must begin the process of mediation.

For example -

Person (A) hates Christianity. They hate it for valid reasons i.e. Politicians use Christianity to pass the laws that suit their political agenda. Religious dogma appears to corrupt free will.

Person (B) is a Christian. They love Christianity for valid reasons. They have experienced the power of Jesus' message in their lives personally and have dedicated themselves to upholding that message.

Invariably there can be no reconcilliation of Person (A) and Person (B) and one might come to the conclusion that there is no right and wrong about it.

If one is willing to be a peacemaker however, then reconcilliation is entirely possible through negotiation.

The question I was asking is 'Here we have two opposing viewpoints that on their own will never be reconcilled. Are you willing to be a peacemaker of 'people' independant of their opposing ideas? Do you have enough faith in shared human ideals to create the bonds of reconcilliation even though you personally will profit nothing? Would you personally attempt to reconcile persons (A) and (B) in this scenario or not?

peace

c20

Well if you have two opposing sides regarding right and wrong and you yourself wish that both parties would be reconcilled independantly of their viewpoints, then you yourself must begin the process of mediation.

For example -

Person (A) hates Christianity. They hate it for valid reasons i.e. Politicians use Christianity to pass the laws that suit their political agenda. Religious dogma appears to corrupt free will.

Person (B) is a Christian. They love Christianity for valid reasons. They have experienced the power of Jesus' message in their lives personally and have dedicated themselves to upholding that message.

Invariably there can be no reconcilliation of Person (A) and Person (B) and one might come to the conclusion that there is no right and wrong about it.

If one is willing to be a peacemaker however, then reconcilliation is entirely possible through negotiation.

The question I was asking is 'Here we have two opposing viewpoints that on their own will never be reconcilled. Are you willing to be a peacemaker of 'people' independant of their opposing ideas? Do you have enough faith in shared human ideals to create the bonds of reconcilliation even though you personally will profit nothing? Would you personally attempt to reconcile persons (A) and (B) in this scenario or not?

peace

c20


If it is within my power to do so I would. I am just a guy with nothing, I guess the best I can do is try to help them reconcile their differences. I can only reconcile my differences with myself and others and between the people I have close contact with.

That is my point, everyone feels justified that they are right. If this is the case than is anything wrong?

I think everyone's wrong. No one's right. Not even this. Contradictory, yeah? But it doesn't matter since everything's invariably wrong anyway.

You're right about that!

It seems to me that everybody believes that their position is right. If this is the case is there any such thing as wrong? After reading almost all of the posts in here it seems everybody is right. This is a symptom of the entire world. The terrorists are right in the actions they take, conversely the Americans are right in the actions they take. The Jews are right, the Christians are right, the Muslims are right. The Chinese are right, the N. Koreans are right, the UK is right. The cops are right, the criminals are right, and so on. Maybe it is just my limited mental capacity to grasp reality but it seems to me that is everybody is right nothing is wrong.

It's quite simple. If you are right, then anyone who says you aren't, isn't.

Right and wrong are dependent upon a mind to make them so. Obviously, I can be right to me about how wrong you are while you're right to you about how wrong I am, all regarding the same subject.

*shrug*

Honestly I think it's more about conservation of will. It takes will for me to admit I'm wrong if faced with such a dillema. Worse, if the shapes of the concepts in our minds are different enough when compared they may disagree, even though they may both be right within the context of our individual minds.

For instance uhm... I learn about "blue" or something. I see something I recognize as such, but to you it appears more purple. Perhaps I will insist that it is a shade of blue. If you insist it's purple, who is wrong?

It gets much more complicated, as each idea and the word(s) associated with it in mind have unique relationships for each individual. Conservation of will basically requires that you build upon whatever your current relationships are, as it would take a herculean effort to "start" over, if it's even possible (unless you're brain damaged tomorrow or something). So people are generally bound to their existing basis of language/ideas and seek to explain whatever subject through them, often resulting in conflicts where both parties see the other as "wrong" because they simply can't relate to the other person's basis.

It's quite simple. If you are right, then anyone who says you aren't, isn't.

Right and wrong are dependent upon a mind to make them so. Obviously, I can be right to me about how wrong you are while you're right to you about how wrong I am, all regarding the same subject.

*shrug*

Honestly I think it's more about conservation of will. It takes will for me to admit I'm wrong if faced with such a dillema. Worse, if the shapes of the concepts in our minds are different enough when compared they may disagree, even though they may both be right within the context of our individual minds.

For instance uhm... I learn about "blue" or something. I see something I recognize as such, but to you it appears more purple. Perhaps I will insist that it is a shade of blue. If you insist it's purple, who is wrong?

It gets much more complicated, as each idea and the word(s) associated with it in mind have unique relationships for each individual. Conservation of will basically requires that you build upon whatever your current relationships are, as it would take a herculean effort to "start" over, if it's even possible (unless you're brain damaged tomorrow or something). So people are generally bound to their existing basis of language/ideas and seek to explain whatever subject through them, often resulting in conflicts where both parties see the other as "wrong" because they simply can't relate to the other person's basis.


Wouldn't it take more "will" to maintain your rightness? It seems to be more of a battle to prove your rightness than to just admit you're wrong. I guess that point is moot since wrong does not exist.

If you are right, then it would take will to be wrong or admit wrongness. You would have to will yourself to accept it, because you've already accepted something else. You may depend on that acceptance for other things as well. As such, to reject is a cost at the expense of your current perception.

I think wrong does exist actually though, subjectively. I am sometimes wrong by my standard. You may be wrong by MY standard. I may be wrong by YOUR standard.

Wrong just doesn't and can't exist independently of a perspective.

If only Socrates could see how we have degenerated so...

If only Socrates could see how we have degenerated so...


Because Socrates was so right that he thought sex with young boys was OK? Talk about degenerate.

If only Socrates could see how we have degenerated so...

What do you mean?

right and wrong are concepts that humans have developed due to the complexity of how our mind works. it is better to look at things as how they are in the universe, instead of if they are right or wrong. right and wrong is dependant upon perspective. if two people see a color differently, it is because their eyes are different, not because one is wrong and one is right. there is no right or wrong, only differing views. the sky is blue to us. it might be purple to a bee, or grey to a dog.

the sky is blue to us. it might be purple to a bee, or grey to a dog.

Well, almost. Let's say that when I was born, I saw the sky as hues of green. But everyone TAUGHT me that the color that I saw was CALLED blue. As a child, I didn't know the names of colors, so I just called that greenish hue in the sky "blue" because that's wht THEY called it. The names of colors are what we're TAUGHT, the actual colors that we see might all be different for different people.

right and wrong are concepts that humans have developed due to the complexity of how our mind works.

Animals know "right" from "wrong", don't they? I'm not so sure those concepts are ONLY a human trait. I'd also say that I'm not so sure that, UNLESS WE'RE TAUGHT "right" from "wrong" that we'd know it. From early childhood, kids are taught things by their parents and others.

In many cases like this, I often read comments about "humans" as if we aren't part of the animals of the world. I'm just not nearly as certain as so many of y'all ...perhaps it's cause I was raised on a farm? ...that I know from experience how animals act? ...and watch the squirrels in my backyard? No, I think squirrels know "right" from "wrong". But it's because they've been taught by their parents.

Baron Max

Baron

I don't understand what you mean by animals know right and wrong. I don't think they have any such concepts. Unless by right you mean survival and by wrong you mean death. Animals just do what they do.

Bconn, you've never seen an animal mother correct one of her offspring? She's teaching them "right" from "wrong". You should watch/study animals a little more closely before making such judgements.

What I find REALLY interesting is your statement: "Animals just do what they do." How do they know what to do if they don't "think" about it? I.e., they might feel hunger which means that they should eat something, but what tells them WHAT to eat? They might feel thirsty, but they also "know" that there are crocodiles at the river and they might be killed. How do they work out that little dilemma if they don't or can't "think"?

And let's not forget that even YOU have been TAUGHT most of what you "think" that you know ....and ye're learning every day, every minute. All of that is just "teaching", and you are learning. ...in much the same way as animals teach their own young.

Baron Max

When one speaks to others and has a clear set of ideals, he knows his place, however if in communicating with others you set your ideals forward and know they are wrong you have no place in any form of debate.

A man who thinks he is right is full of conviction, a man who knows he is wrong is full of shit.

Bconn, you've never seen an animal mother correct one of her offspring? She's teaching them "right" from "wrong". You should watch/study animals a little more closely before making such judgements.

What I find REALLY interesting is your statement: "Animals just do what they do." How do they know what to do if they don't "think" about it? I.e., they might feel hunger which means that they should eat something, but what tells them WHAT to eat? They might feel thirsty, but they also "know" that there are crocodiles at the river and they might be killed. How do they work out that little dilemma if they don't or can't "think"?

And let's not forget that even YOU have been TAUGHT most of what you "think" that you know ....and ye're learning every day, every minute. All of that is just "teaching", and you are learning. ...in much the same way as animals teach their own young.

Baron Max

I wasn't saying that they don't think and learn. I was saying that all of the things that they do are survival techniques. Right to an animal is surviving until the next day, wrong to an animal is death. Why do mother's sometimes eat their young, or when a male lion comes in to a new pride why does it kill all of the offspring of the previous male? Survival.

When one speaks to others and has a clear set of ideals, he knows his place, however if in communicating with others you set your ideals forward and know they are wrong you have no place in any form of debate.

A man who thinks he is right is full of conviction, a man who knows he is wrong is full of shit.

This entire statement seems like rigid denial. Having convictions is one thing, but does flexibility have no place? If you beleive you are right there is no wrong.

It's because everyone thinks they are right, yes it is flexible as it is only thinking rather than knowing (in the context of what i said).

Obviously someone who KNOWS what they say is false is nothing more that lying.

Well, almost. Let's say that when I was born, I saw the sky as hues of green. But everyone TAUGHT me that the color that I saw was CALLED blue. As a child, I didn't know the names of colors, so I just called that greenish hue in the sky "blue" because that's wht THEY called it. The names of colors are what we're TAUGHT, the actual colors that we see might all be different for different people.

i was using color as an example that everything is based on perception. one has to know why something appears blue to actually know a characteristic of it, not just knowing that it is blue.

Animals know "right" from "wrong", don't they? I'm not so sure those concepts are ONLY a human trait. I'd also say that I'm not so sure that, UNLESS WE'RE TAUGHT "right" from "wrong" that we'd know it. From early childhood, kids are taught things by their parents and others.

again, right and wrong are based on perception. i was referring to the human sense of right and wrong. an animal's sense of morals is based on survival. the parent teaches the child to do things in order for it to survive. a human can teach a dog not to pee on the carpet, but that doesn't mean its right or wrong. human morals have so many more variables than lesser animals' do. this means that it is easier to make an incorrect assumption. morals are basically assumptions about how ones lifestyle affects the world around them and vice versa.

In many cases like this, I often read comments about "humans" as if we aren't part of the animals of the world. I'm just not nearly as certain as so many of y'all ...perhaps it's cause I was raised on a farm? ...that I know from experience how animals act? ...and watch the squirrels in my backyard? No, I think squirrels know "right" from "wrong". But it's because they've been taught by their parents.

Baron Max

right and wrong is not inherent in everything. it is all due to perspective; how and individual or a community percieves the world around them. squirrells have methods for survival that could be construed as simple morals. humans have more advanced methods of survival and coping with the world that we call morals. there is no good or bad, right or wrong, only situations that can be advantageous or detrimental to an organism.

Regarding comments by 2OH25N3o: The Baptist had a convention in Dallas and an all out fight ensued over doctrine. Many other churches, mine included are having behind the scenes they do not wish the members to know about. Somewhere in the bible it says, The mind can never know or understand God. The true transmission of Jesus is, Not through a glass darkly.....but then face to face. Meditation preceded by silence and stillness. "Be still and KNOW....Paul. Outside of the influences encountered in time will you truly one on one meet Jesus and in a second you will understand.

bconn29:

Because Socrates was so right that he thought sex with young boys was OK? Talk about degenerate.

Two things:

1. In Socrates' "Symposium", we find a very homosexually disinterested Socrates, who does not speak about having sex with young boys as "okay", and places all of eros on a lower-standing than seeking the Form of Beauty.

2. There is nothing objectively wrong with having sex with an adolescent boy, specifically if it is their culture.

Wesmorris:

What do you mean?

That the notion that truth is nonexistent is even being spoken about seriously.

Thankfully, however, we are only dealing with morality, it seems.

RoyLennigan:

i was using color as an example that everything is based on perception. one has to know why something appears blue to actually know a characteristic of it, not just knowing that it is blue.

-Everything- is based on perception? Even logical truths, you're claiming here? Or do you mean all empirical things?

Not everyone is right, and as a matter of fact, most people are not in touch with reality.

These thoughts just go hand in hand with the contemporary bullshit wave of political correctness crap. The problem reminds me of Wittgenstein's Personal Universe, in his Tractatus . Problem is, people don't understand what they even mean with this idea of everyone being right. I swear, I want to kill myself whenever I hear someone say “relax, it's just an opinion.”

Right and wrong are ideas impressed upon the mind of a person through social experience and what their culture deems "right from wrong". These people (whether aware of it or not) are mislead from birth. To fully understand this one must break away from this and realize that the intricacy of our existance is so infinate that no one can ever see anything in the same light as anyone else. Consiquently, since no two people can see the same thing just as the other, I believe that ethics and right and wrong can only come from the inside. As I have said many times, all of this depends on perspective.

Among Shadows:

And of truth? What is your position there?

Just because everyone thinks they are right doesnt mean no-one is wrong, I can sit here and say the earth is flat, think im right, but that doesnt mean I am, in an arguement, there is always right and wrong, such as is there a god or not, one way has to be right even though we both think we are the correct side