If everybody is right, what is wrong?

You're right about that!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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...

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

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.

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:

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:

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

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

RoyLennigan:

-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.