This is the first thread I have posted

I way reading a book that asked what is the difference between "Right" and "Good" and all I could think of is that "Right" deals with generalistics and "Good" deals with specifics.
:confused:

:D

Asguard...


For me, RIGHT has something to do with 'should' and 'shouldn''t',
whereas GOOD is kind of the result of 'RIGHT'...but then it seems to be that GOOD should go first before RIGHT takes its place...??

:bugeye: ....

Right is about being correct...

Good is about being favorable...

It is common to be one and not the other.

Meniscus


Sorry that last responce went over my head whould you mind explaining it again for me

Being good, I suppose contains altruistic connotations which right does not have.

- Sivakami.

Asguard,

Let me say it another way. Consider the following statement:


Slavery was once legal in the United States of America.

This statement is "right" because it is factual.
This statement is not "good" because slavery was horrible beyond written description.

Hope this helps clarify my meaning...

ok so you mean that Right has to do with truth and good is a motive?

The statement is not a good statement because it's not a good reflection of what man is capable of doing to man. Not a good reminder. Not a good memory.

Both terms are highly subjective, though "good" may edge out "right" where subjectivity is concerned.

Really don't see how "motive" fits in with the two statements. But that's just MY interpretation.

~~~

Counterbalance

Right depends upon the eye of the beholder. Back when slavery was dominant throughout the ancient world and, later in the US the majority of the people thought it was a good thing, that the slaves upped the economy, and in some cases people thought they were inferior and didn't deserve a free life anyway. We describe slavery as barbaric. What will our descendents think is barbaric about our times?

-Eating meat (even though it tastes just soo good. They'll have probably designed trekkie replicators or get all their food and tastes from plants)

-Wars in general. No matter what point you're at in history, any war that happened before is seen as barbaric and wrong. When has there ever been a good war? eh?

-Racial Prejudice, a higher level of slavery. We're getting toward equality, but I think it'll probably be at least a century before blacks, jews, arabs, hispanics, orientals and whites look the same.

-Computers. They'll probably have better computers. I hope so, just because good computers are generally a cool thing.:p

pollux v

You have your point there:
RIGHT is a form of personal experience,everyone has his or her own view of what 'RIGHT' actually is..like one of those chinese sayings..everyone has a ruler inside his heart...you can't force him to use metric if it is calibrated in GB. Well, some might have both but it is still a ruler of his own..

Great examples you provided..wow!!
what if they move to Mars saying that the Earth is barbaric for staying....??haha:D :D

Asguard:

Yes, that is good thinking :)



Pollux:

I disagree. I don't think right is subjective (unless used as a metaphor for good). Right is just about the correctness of facts. Good (or bad) would be better used for descriptive purposes...


ps I don't believe that anyone, ANYONE, who sat down and thought about the cruelness of slavery could ever have thought that is was an OK practice

Thanks that has been bugging me for ages

I think the difference is basically that right is a mesurement of a quality and good is a quality. For instance a statement is "right" because it contains a satisfactory amount of truthfullness or accuracy within it. Also an action might be considered "right" because it contains a stisfactory amount of morality. On the other hand "good" is more like a quality that causes something to become more favorable to us. I.E. you might call a certain song "good" because you find it rather enjoyable. Some other things I've noticed is that good is more of a fuzzy logic type idea while right tends towards regular logic more often.
Having shared that, here's one that's been tormenting me. What is the difference between a belief and an opinion, and how do I know the approriate use for each without being able to discern the difference.

-Matt

heres a start

a belif you have closed your mind to other options

where as an opinion you will still consider other options

Maybe..

I'm starting to think that an opinion implies a proof of some sort to support it while a belief relies on faith.
-Matt

I wouldn't agree with that because when you are talking MORALS and ETHICS you are talking about belifs to not opinions

I see your point. How about beliefs are a subset of opinions distinguished by the strength of conviction involved. Which is basically what you said earlier except that it allows for beliefs to change but not as often as opinions. (e.g. people who convert to other religions change their beliefs.)
-Matt

Bah, humbug!

The Cherokees in 1828 were not nomadic savages. In fact, they had assimilated many European-style customs, including the wearing of gowns by Cherokee women. They built roads, schools and churches, had a system of representational government, and were farmers and cattle ranchers. A Cherokee alphabet, the "Talking Leaves" was perfected by Sequoyah.


In 1830 the Congress of the United States passed the "Indian Removal Act." Although many Americans were against the act, most notably Tennessee Congressman Davy Crockett, it passed anyway. President Jackson quickly signed the bill into law. The Cherokees attempted to fight removal legally by challenging the removal laws in the Supreme Court and by establishing an independent Cherokee Nation.


In 1832, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Cherokee on the same issue in Worcester vs. Georgia. In this case Chief Justice John Marshall ruled that the Cherokee Nation was sovereign, making the removal laws invalid. The Cherokee would have to agree to removal in a treaty. The treaty then would have to be ratified by the Senate.


By 1835 the Cherokee were divided and despondent. Most supported Principal Chief John Ross, who fought the encroachment of whites starting with the 1832 land lottery. However, a minority(less than 500 out of 17,000 Cherokee in North Georgia) followed Major Ridge, his son John, and Elias Boudinot, who advocated removal. The Treaty of New Echota, signed by Ridge and members of the Treaty Party in 1835, gave Jackson the legal document he needed to remove the First Americans. Ratification of the treaty by the United States Senate sealed the fate of the Cherokee


In 1838 the United States began the removal to Oklahoma, fulfilling a promise the government made to Georgia in 1802. Ordered to move on the Cherokee, General John Wool resigned his command in protest, delaying the action. His replacement, General Winfield Scott, arrived at New Echota on May 17, 1838 with 7000 men. Early that summer General Scott and the United States Army began the invasion of the Cherokee Nation.


In one of the saddest episodes of our brief history, men, women, and children were taken from their land, herded into makeshift forts with minimal facilities and food, then forced to march a thousand miles(Some made part of the trip by boat in equally horrible conditions). Under the generally indifferent army commanders, human losses for the first groups of Cherokee removed were extremely high. John Ross made an urgent appeal to Scott, requesting that the general let his people lead the tribe west. General Scott agreed. Ross organized the Cherokee into smaller groups and let them move separately through the wilderness so they could forage for food. Although the parties under Ross left in early fall and arrived in Oklahoma during the brutal winter of 1838-39, he significantly reduced the loss of life among his people. About 4000 Cherokee died as a result of the removal. The route they traversed and the journey itself became known as "The Trail of Tears" or, as a direct translation from Cherokee, "The Trail Where They Cried" ("Nunna daul Tsuny").


Cherokee Nation "...that all men are created equal, and that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, among these the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.." brutally closed the curtain on a culture that had done no wrong


Indian Reservation

( Paul Revere and the Raiders )


They took the whole Cherokee Nation

And put us on this reservation

Took away our ways of life

The tomahawk and the bow and knife


They took away our native tongue

And taught their English to our young

And all the beads we made by hand

Are nowadays made in Japan


Cherokee people, Cherokee tribe

So proud to live, so proud to die


They took the whole Indian Nation

And locked us on this reservation

And though I wear a shirt and tie

I’m still a red man deep inside


Cherokee people, Cherokee tribe

So proud to live, so proud to die


But maybe someday when they learn

Cherokee Nation will return

Will return

Will return

Will return

Will return


...Being legal and right doesn't always make it "good" as it can become immoral and that's my point of view

I would have to agree that that was NOT a "GOOD" act but i would also say its not "Moraly right" either so is that the anwer. is good what is 'Moraly right"

Thank you

I think the difference between a belief and an opinion would just have to be the stregth of the "belief in the corectness of the oppinion" that would satisfy both Moral, Religouse and Scientific usage i think

quote by Asguard

I think the difference between a belief and an opinion would just have to be the stregth of the "belief in the corectness of the oppinion" that would satisfy both Moral, Religouse and Scientific usage i think

I agree with you and find that a well thought out sentance. Sadly. most people allow their personal opinion to interfere with their thought process and look at things from their persepctive and not the perspective of others for the common good.

Forgot to mention the 'Cherokee Phoenix' - The First native American
newspaper published in the United States.

Elias Boudimott's 1827 proposal:

http://azimuth.harcourtcollege.com/history/ayers/chapter10/10.3.phoenix.html

Take care ;)

I would have to agree that that was NOT a "GOOD" act but i would also say its not "Moraly right" either so is that the anwer. is good what is 'Moraly right"

I think that definition is too limited. For example, people comonly use good to describe in animate objects as well. "This is a good chair." Of course morality doesn't apply to the chair because:
A. It doesn't have the capacity of thought.
and
B. It cannot perform any actions.
Yet still I consider this chair to be a good chair. In other words I find certain things about this chair appealing so I label it good. In the same sense I find morality appealing so I label it good as well.

Note: I think substituting appealing for favorable makes for a better definition so I'll use that instead.

Right is about being correct...
Good is about being favorable...

Woops sorry Meniscus for some reason I didn't notice you made the same point earlier, only simpler.
Needless to say I agree with you. :D

Right is about being correct but it also depends on the context.
Consider the following sentence:
"I want to kill that guy."
It could be considered right if the speaker of the sentence was telling the truth. But it can also be considered not right in a moral context.

I think the difference between a belief and an opinion would just have to be the stregth of the "belief in the corectness of the oppinion" that would satisfy both Moral, Religouse and Scientific usage i think

I'm not sure I get your meaning about that. But it brings up a thought. People can have a belief in something but not an oppinion in something. I don't know if that has any relevance but it makes me think that I had it backwards and oppinions are really a subset of belief based on strength of opinion.

-Matt

wondering if you would give an example of someone having a "belief" without holding a personal opinion on that belief

wondering if you would give an example of someone having a "belief" without holding a personal opinion on that belief

That's a really good point. *Sigh* I guess it's back to the drawing board.:)

ok let me put it clearly

Scientific (and general) usage:
i have the opinion that the earth revolves around the sun
i have the Belief that the earth revolves around the sun

Moral usage:
I am of the opinion that killing is wrong
I belive that killing is wrong

Religouse usage:
My opinion is that God loves us all
I belive that god loves all of us

which of those sentance is stronger?
the belief sentances so the difference between a belief and an opinion is the streagth of YOUR BELIEF IN THE OPINION

(hope that makes it clearer)

quote...People can have a belief in something but not an oppinion in something

quote....wondering if you would give an example of someone having a "belief" without holding a personal opinion on that belief

answer....ok let me put it clearly

Scientific (and general) usage:
i have the opinion that the earth revolves around the sun
i have the Belief that the earth revolves around the sun

Moral usage:
I am of the opinion that killing is wrong
I belive that killing is wrong

Religouse usage:
My opinion is that God loves us all
I belive that god loves all of us

If you have the belief that the earth rotates around the sun then you also have the personal opinion that it rotates around the sun.
The same can be said for "God loves us all". If you don't believe God loves us all then your personal opinion would be how you did believe. see my point??While I am not saying "yet" it is impossible to have a belief in something without a personal opinion.. you still haven't shown an example of it as all of your examples had the same belief and opinion.

That wasn't me
Thats NOT what i was answering that post came WHILE i was anwering the other one
please read the last sentace of my post
i was trying to re-state the post that you quoted me on because matticiousg didn't seem to understand what i ment