Philosophy Forum

Read Topic
Reply

Right and wrong, how?

Philosophy Forum
» Ethics
» Right and wrong, how?

Get Email Updates • Email this Topic • Print this Page

Hello all

Always I ask my self is wrong and right are the same for all people, I know the answer is defiantly no

I mean sometime I feel that my action is right, but for other my action is wrong

Sometime you think your answer is right, but in your instructor view its wrong, but for another instructor its right

Moreover how people separate between right and wrong, false and true which stander they use to measure these

Does person him self is the one who assess the good and bad, correct and mistake

I think there are some external factors that influence like society, belief and other customs ,books,theory

peace and blessing

@Arya,

Arya;73312 wrote:

Hello all

Always I ask my self is wrong and right are the same for all people, I know the answer is defiantly no

I mean sometime I feel that my action is right, but for other my action is wrong

Sometime you think your answer is right, but in your instructor view its wrong, but for another instructor its right

Moreover how people separate between right and wrong, false and true which stander they use to measure these

Does person him self is the one who assess the good and bad, correct and mistake

I think there are some external factors that influence like society, belief and other customs ,books,theory

peace and blessing

Hi,

I think you will find that this subject has been broached on this forum and in times past - many times. Smile

My answer in brief is that everyone sees the universe from their own unique perspective based upon the skills and knowledge that they have accumulated and what they currently perceive with their senses and imagine with their mind at a given point in time.

Since each person owns a very unique space/time perspective, then their judgment of what is right and wrong will be different, even if only minutely from someone else. In some cases, as you will witness on this forum, disagreement is often much more than that.

But because it would be total chaos to disagree on every single thing that might happen, and because sometimes the disagreements are so minute, people agree to agree by forming a consensus. Maybe it is via a dictionary, or a rule book or a judge, or mutual agreements that are made through contracts. There are many ways people reach consensus and they live life as such.

And at times, when a particular subject has particular meaning to someone, then that person will disagree even if it totally disrupts universal consensus. Galileo did this and suffered the consequences. Society doesn't like it when you rock the boat. Smile

So I feel that what we call morality, ethics, rule of law, is arrived at by consensus and is going to be different depending upon which group you are involved with. And at times, people are motivated to articulate their own personal perspective and for that they may find a new consensus (as Einstein eventually did), or have to endure ridicule. People aren't very tolerant sometimes. Smile

Rich

@Arya,

Arya;73312 wrote:

Hello all

Always I ask my self is wrong and right are the same for all people, I know the answer is defiantly no

I mean sometime I feel that my action is right, but for other my action is wrong

Sometime you think your answer is right, but in your instructor view its wrong, but for another instructor its right

Moreover how people separate between right and wrong, false and true which stander they use to measure these

Does person him self is the one who assess the good and bad, correct and mistake

I think there are some external factors that influence like society, belief and other customs ,books,theory

peace and blessing

Can you give me a case when two instructors disagreed on whether an answer was right or wrong when there was an answer to the question?

It is true, of course, that people may disagree on what they think is right (or wrong). But that doesn't mean that there is not correct answer to the question, does it? I may just be that one does not know the answer, and the other does know the answer, or else, it may be that neither one knows the answer.

That people often see things from differing perspectives is, of course true. But that does not mean that one perspective is not right, and that the other perspective is not wrong. If, for instance, I view train tracks from one perspective, they seem to converge at a distance. But when I go up to the place where they seemed to converge, they do not converge at all. From which perspective do you think is the right way of looking at the train tracks? Do the tracks really converge, or do they only seem to converge?

@Arya,

Statements about matters of fact are either true or false. Lincoln was the first President of the US is false.
Statements about normative (ethical) actions or ideas are different from matters of fact, because there are no rules or procedures for establishing their truth (truth in the sense of universal acceptance).
Everyone is faced with moral or ethical choices; one must take responsibility for these and the reasons for making them.

@richrf,

Hi friend,

I think there is indeed no rightness or wrongness in the universe, for whether something is right or wrong all depends on the person who wills it or, proves it by means of cogent arguments. Therefore, whether you are right or wrong all depends on your way of giving demonstrations and skills in establishing arguments.

The next question is, is the way whereby you establish your argument right in a strict sense? Questions like this will go on forever.

In general, 1+1=2 is not intrinsically right. Its so-called rightness was proved. Therefore, one of the best ways to "approach" truth, for me, is dedicating one's self to the training of logic, given that logic includes the study of making arguments.

@Mutian,

Mutian;73900 wrote:

Hi friend,

I think there is indeed no rightness or wrongness in the universe, for whether something is right or wrong all depends on the person who wills it or, proves it by means of cogent arguments. Therefore, whether you are right or wrong all depends on your way of giving demonstrations and skills in establishing arguments.

The next question is, is the way whereby you establish your argument right in a strict sense? Questions like this will go on forever.

In general, 1+1=2 is not intrinsically right. Its so-called rightness was proved. Therefore, one of the best ways to "approach" truth, for me, is dedicating one's self to the training of logic, given that logic includes the study of making arguments.

I can be right when I say that Barack Obama is, at this moment, in the bathroom, and not be able to prove it.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;74054 wrote:

I can be right when I say that Barack Obama is, at this moment, in the bathroom, and not be able to prove it.

How could you know that you are right without being able to prove it? If you are right, your judgment and the fact that Obama is in the bathroom are two separate things without any connections, for you are right not by means of cogent proofs, but by virtue of luck. Only when your guess or prediction is proved by some other more reliable and qualified authorities or sources can your prediction or proposition be right. If not be so, your so-called "truth" is only a coincidence.

But, even a "right" coincidence can be proved, not by you, but someone else, who is able to prove that Obama is in the bathroom if it is an objective truth. For example, his wife, daughters, maids..etc. We have to know that not everyone is capable of or obliged for proving what she/he deems right. But her incapability does not prevent from the truth from becoming the truth, for someone else will prove it anyway if such a truth has been proved right historically.

Then, you may ask, who was the first one to prove that something is true, or is it true by nature? If it is true by nature, does it need to be proved? My answer is: of course, it needs to be proved, for the claim that "it is right by nature" is itself a proof made by ourselves. In like manner, everything's credibility must be proved.

In conclusion, "truth" without proof is not truth. If it is truth, it can must be proved by someone who is qualified for proving it. Thus, you cannot say that Barack Obama is in the bathroom is an unshakable truth if you cannot prove it. :sarcastic:

@Arya,

hello Arya,

My comments are there is only right. What is conflictive is when another attempts to invade another by issuing from their own particular, individual space and effort to force the other to comply with that individual's particular space as to what is right. Each have there own perceptions gathered from their experiences and no two are alike. This is called "oppression". In that we do not allow the deemed "lesser" a chance to offer what is that which defines their "own individual particular space", it stifles real and truthful communication. The entire human race is inflicted with this disease and it started a long, long time ago. It is a product of ego of the stronger to overpower the of lesser of different knowledge that would conflict with their own. That's what is "wrong". Only the super ego has the nerve to point that finger to issue to another that "they are wrong" when very little is known as to the reason why the other thinks the way they do. It's called "mental cruelty" and most are guilty of it in some form or the other. Myself included. It has been the standard for thousands of years.

IMO, we are venturing into a new age of universal enlightenment and communication and old habits are hard to break. But we are getting there.

If you don't mind let me offer a reason why we are that way. It lies in the misinterpretation and wrong use of verbage in the serenity prayer. If you are not familiar with it, it states:

"God give me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
The courage to change the things is can,
And the wisdom to know the difference".

Now that is assuming we can affect change in the thoughts of another. If I might offer a variation:

"God granted me the serenity to "understand" the things I cannot change,
To voice my truth when asked,
And understanding the wisdom of silence is golden".

It is my firm belief no one can change another unless the other asks permission to do so. To assume such without that permission is rude, offensive and oppressive. IMO.

We can learn much by observing and listening but we must remain silent until requested to speak ones own individual truth as it relates to the communication with others. It must be allowed, complimentary to the both, and in all cases with the permission of each. In my opinion we have a lot to learn in regards to how we communicate with each other. This is my opinion and I welcome different opinions for it is not etched in stone and it can be improved. I am speaking from my own experiences in that my entire life has been learning how to communicate with other people. It is not perfected, but I think it is on the right track. Smile

William

@William,

I liked your analysis very reasonable, I totally agree with you that each one has his own perspective in everything and it's vary from someone to someone

Thank you sir richrf for giving us some of your precious time

kennethamy

Quote:

Can you give me a case when two instructors disagreed on whether an answer was right or wrong when there was an answer to the question?

I cannot remember now any cases, but let me give you an example

In school sometime one of the instructor will give you 4 out of 10 , but if you give it for another instructor he will give you full mark.

That is not hypothesis cases it can

As you said people may disagree with each other because each one has his own stander to evaluate the wrongness and rightness of thing

Quote:

That people often see things from differing perspectives is, of course true. But that does not mean that one perspective is not right, and that the other perspective is not wrong. If, for instance, I view train tracks from one perspective, they seem to converge at a distance. But when I go up to the place where they seemed to converge, they do not converge at all. From which perspective do you think is the right way of looking at the train tracks? Do the tracks really converge, or do they only seem to converge?

Great example, you want to say that people see the thing from different places, that why each one has his own right and wrong perspective

Very convince answer, no comment actually and I cannot reply I have to consider your example very well

Anyway thank you very much my friend for this brilliant participating thanks

jgweed

But now many cities has established rules to regulate our ethic, so people have to see the wrong and right from this side

For example, for me driving over speed is not wrong, but the police see this wrong so I have to see it wrong, so I didn't choose this

Thank you Mr.jgweed,

Good answer

Mutian

[QUOTE]

Therefore, whether you are right or wrong all depends on your way of giving demonstrations and skills in establishing arguments.

In general, 1+1=2 is not intrinsically right. Its so-called rightness was proved. Therefore, one of the best ways to "approach" truth, for me, is dedicating one's self to the training of logic, given that logic includes the study of making arguments.

[/QUOTE]

Mmmm I think that there is no relation between proving the right and viewing right.

I mean that logic is not related with this, the right and wrong relate to the ethical and thinking of person and do not need any prove

Do you think this?

William

Very detailed answer very good and very beneficial answer for the reader about the right and wrong I have no comment because you said everything

Many thanks Mr. William

Philosophy Forum
» Ethics
» Right and wrong, how?

Read Topic
Reply

Philosophy Forum

Right and wrong, how?

Quick Links

My Account

able2know