Why does everyone have to be right?

[Pra]

Question above. Perhaps asking it is a tad bit naive; yet not asking it may be too blase.

There are so many 'rights' out there; the one true path, the absense of the one true bath, there are no true paths, etc. All saying they are only right; so I ask-are there contradictory 'rights'? Different 'rights' have proven to be useful for different people, so perhaps we should embrace a new idea, not a belief mind you, but an idea. We are all right in our own ways.

Perhaps we need to stop worrying about who is really that right, and just 'be' in our own 'rightnes'.

I hope that made sense.

[RZZZA]

Are you referring to how people here can get carried away with debates and trying to prove that theyre right? If so, I agree. If youre talking about something else then sorry.

[bdh]

Question above. Perhaps asking it is a tad bit naive; yet not asking it may be too blase.

There are so many 'rights' out there; the one true path, the absense of the one true bath, there are no true paths, etc. All saying they are only right; so I ask-are there contradictory 'rights'? Different 'rights' have proven to be useful for different people, so perhaps we should embrace a new idea, not a belief mind you, but an idea. We are all right in our own ways.

Perhaps we need to stop worrying about who is really that right, and just 'be' in our own 'rightnes'.

I hope that made sense.

No, I'm fairly certain someone is wrong. If you have an objective, there may be multiple ways to achieve it, but there is usually one that is easiest. Those which are less correct, are not 'the one true path.' Different social desires will obviously give you different paths, but the one most universally common and rooted in our own evolution is the simple desire to live in contentness and happiness with those around us. One belief will achieve that best.

[RZZZA]

Maybe "right" to me is beating elderly retiree's to a bloodly pulp with a rusty tire iron, should I be in my own "rightness" then? No, I think there is a standard, cliche "right" that we all must acknowledge and abide by, certain things which are non negotiable. For instance, everyone knows that beating elderly retired people to death with a tire iron is wrong, no matter how much they may have it coming.

But other, less important things, can be questioned. For instance, recycling. Everyone thinks its so great to recycle, local government is even pushing to make it mandatory for everyone in the city to recycle. I dont believe in recycling, I dont do it out of principle. Thats something that people give more leeway in. Killing elderly retirees with tire iron=not okay. Killing mother Earth slowly with garbage=okay, or something like that anyway.

[bdh]

I dont believe in recycling, I dont do it out of principle. Thats something that people give more leeway in.

Why should we accept anything as arbitrary as that? What is the root of the principle. Undoubtedly the same one as beating old people to death. There is a logical reasoning behind forcing people to recycle; it can be proven fallacious whereas the other can't just because someone said so.

[RZZZA]

I dont believe in recycling because modern garbage dumps are run under the strictest of codes, they are all self-recycling anyway. There is no such thing as a dump where garbage just sits there forever, they sort it and recycle it all anyway, and turn the dump eventually into a pretty green park for the public. Recycling costs extra, and achieves very little. Extra garbage dumps for all!

[bdh]

I dont believe in recycling because modern garbage dumps are run under the strictest of codes, they are all self-recycling anyway.

Not all of them

There is no such thing as a dump where garbage just sits there forever, they sort it and recycle it all anyway,

So you don't think that recycling is wrong, only that the extra step of decentralized human sorting is unesscessary.

Recycling costs extra, and achieves very little.

Source?

I don't understand, whats the principle so far in your logic? That believe there is a logically superior way to deal with something? Thats what I have been saying all along.

[over-man]

Question above. Perhaps asking it is a tad bit naive; yet not asking it may be too blase.

There are so many 'rights' out there; the one true path, the absense of the one true bath, there are no true paths, etc. All saying they are only right; so I ask-are there contradictory 'rights'? Different 'rights' have proven to be useful for different people, so perhaps we should embrace a new idea, not a belief mind you, but an idea. We are all right in our own ways.

Perhaps we need to stop worrying about who is really that right, and just 'be' in our own 'rightnes'.

I hope that made sense.

You're right. Oh... wait.. :hmmm:



I find it funny when two religions fight over who's right, it makes them both look wrong.

[Last Roman]

that's easy...because no one wants to be wrong

[bdh]

that's easy...because no one wants to be wrong

Wow. That is the best answer to the original question....
Its just so simple

Plastic garbage is ground up and turned into stuff like the plastic for your shoelaces.

So it is recycled.

That epside of bullsh!t convinced me not to recycle, I love that show, I dunno why you say its invalid. Is it because I cant link you to something you can read? Well I dont want to do that anyway even if I could, I dont really want to convince you I'm just telling you what I think. If you really want to see why, check out the recycling episode of penn and tellers bullsh!t next time a rerun is on.

It doesn't matter if you don't think you're wrong. You're still wrong.

[Stalins Ghost]

Right and Wrong is subjective. I think most of the time two argueing sides most likely just argue for arguements sake, particuarly in politics. The majority of the time there is a way to support both side of an arguement, but fear of wounded pride prevents a solution. This applies in so many walks of life too. It's one of those sad truths that people hate to give the least bit of ground when their "reputation" is at stake. Either that or their wallets. I'd like to say that I'd love to see everyone get along, but I too am guilty of rigid adherance to my beliefs (not in the religious sense) at times.

[Shaun]

Perhaps we need to stop worrying about who is really that right, and just 'be' in our own 'rightnes'.

Unfortunetly, very few people think like this, thats why we have such intolerance of certian minorities and pastimes.

[carl-the-conqueror]

there is no right, just not so dreadfully wrong

[the Eternal Cocoon]

Question above. Perhaps asking it is a tad bit naive; yet not asking it may be too blase.

There are so many 'rights' out there; the one true path, the absense of the one true bath, there are no true paths, etc. All saying they are only right; so I ask-are there contradictory 'rights'? Different 'rights' have proven to be useful for different people, so perhaps we should embrace a new idea, not a belief mind you, but an idea. We are all right in our own ways.

Perhaps we need to stop worrying about who is really that right, and just 'be' in our own 'rightnes'.

I hope that made sense.

the problem happens when one's rightness comes in conflict with someone elses rightness. For example, for muslims and for jews jurusalem is a holy land. For both of them it is insulting to think that the other riligion is desecrating thier holy places. or capatalists who have socialist principles forced upon them, pacificts forced to war, war-birds forced to peace, ect. There is always a time when people have to decide which way to go, which idea or idealogy to choose, when they have to decide which one they will hold as true in practice ( like a prime-minister who has to choose between war and peace, or socialism or war, states-rights or federalism), and thats what leads to people being forced to live under a idealogy that is diffrent from thiers. When you live under conditions unsatisfactory to you, especially in moral terms, you eaither have to fight it or join it. If jews are bing rounded up around you and killed you have to make the choice to eaither defend them or attack them. You cant always hide in nuetrality.

[I Have a Clever Name]

In the extreme case of the individual who lacks any empathic capacity, (we use the term "psychopathic" to describe such people) their sense of entitlement and their obliviousness to the humanity of other individuals results in them using other people entirely as objects that are subservient to their desires. Might the same be said for collectives and nations with an over-developed sense of their unshakeable rightness?

The two pretty much go hand in hand. If somebody is so absolutely convinced that they are correct as opposed to their contemporaries then their sense of empathy is likely to be overriden completely. One of the most extreme examples I can think of is Hitler's disposition towards the Jews. He was absolutely convinced they were subhuman, the most despicable of the untermenschen. This sense of 'rightness' probably in turn invoked a complete absence of empathy in his dealings with them. This could be applied to almost the entire Nazi nation because, as we all know, Hitler's psyche subversively permeated all facets of society resulting in indescribable tragedies. I suppose a viable question is whether the lack of empathy came first or the factual convicton?

There should be a distinction between factual and moral rightness. Factually speaking, no matter what your conviction it is possible to accept that your beliefs regarding the existence in general can be falsified provided you can control your egotistical precepts. But morally? Morality is different because it has a biological foundation, it is an emotional response to certain attitudes and actions. I would speculate that this can be refined and fine-tuned by upbringing (e.g differences in attitudes to women, punishment of criminals etc.) but essentially remains instinctive. Seeing as our morality is little more than a survival mechanism from a reductionist perspective, and therefore reliant on unshakeable prejudices, how can we ever reconcile our morality with others? If we were not as humans so similiar it would result in absolute chaos. Of course, those who have an abnormal sense of morality are, as you say, generally branded as lunatics and segregated from society for the dangers they pose.

It is only by comparing our universal opinions (i.e pain is bad) that we can reconcile differing moral perspectives and avert utter confusion. Otherwise we could invade one another's nations based on the gut feeling that what we are doing is 'good' - our biology makes us feel this is so, because the outcome would be profitable. The only aversion would stem from fear. But if we accept that 'pain is bad' then suddenly the war becomes immoral, inherently wrong - but, again, this is reliant on empathy. It might be possible that a deranged murderer could not comprehend his victim's ability to feel pain whatsoever.

Peace is dependent on our ability to accept that we could be wrong or at least that we can live peacefully, if at all possible, with those we disagree with.

[Richard]

The obvious answer to this thread is this: It would be a pretty retarded religion if it admitted it was wrong, wouldn't it? (although I must admit Roman religion was very tolerant and accepted changes and new ideas all the time. The gods being the unpredictable things they were)

[Pra]

So can an entity be 'not wrong' per say, but willing to accept the 'rightness' of others and still function successfully?

[Tecumseh]

So can an entity be 'not wrong' per say, but willing to accept the 'rightness' of others and still function successfully?

I guess if it's Buddhism.

The culture of the adherents of a religion is the most important factor though. If the culture is xenophobic(rightly or wrongly so), then it doesn't matter what religion the people claim to adhere to, the people will think that the other guys religion is wrong(regardless of doctrine).
Christianity according to it's doctrine can't really accept other religions as "right", but if the society in which people claim to adhere it is very tolerant, then people may be much more likely to accept the beliefs of Muslims, Jews, etc.

[Nihil]

So can an entity be 'not wrong' per say, but willing to accept the 'rightness' of others and still function successfully?

Once again this relates to what Clever Name said in his excellent post about the distinction between factual rightness and emotional, moral rightness.

A scientist has as the primary tenet of his belief system (his emotional or moral sense of rightness) the primacy of the scientific method. As such he can only accept as right that which can be factually shown - or in the absence of categorically conclusive facts, he will accept as right only the most satisfactory and simple theory.

Of course scientists, although they and their discoveries are in the vanguard of human technological development, are a minority group. The rest of us have a much less stringent criteria for rightness. And, as I mentioned above, even the faith of a scientist in the scientific method is an emotional trust in itself.

Therefore, I'm doubtful about the degree to which a human can admit to other moral perspectives. The emotional belief in one's rightness is something that can be tempered, but never overcome completely, because it's an instinctive prerequisite for survival. Relativism and a "live and let live" attitude may become part of our value system, but, in extremis we must all fall back on the Darwinism of ideas and beliefs to weed out the weakest and ensure the dominance of the best ideas.

This leads to a strange paradoxical hypothetical if the foundation of our belief might be that no single belief is inherently right...

Because if the human mind considers something right, then it does not doubt itself. Otherwise it does not consider itself right. See the paradox?

That's a good one too.

So, to return to your question, Pra:

So can an entity be 'not wrong' per say, but willing to accept the 'rightness' of others and still function successfully?

The best answer I can think of is that as long as both belief systems are prosperously coexisting without difficulties, then yes. However, as soon as one side has something that the other wants, the opposing ideologies will become a way of differentiating friend from foe and demonising the others.

Ultimately, if peacful cooperation is to become a univerally accepted "right" idea, it will have to be so conclusively shown to be the most efficient approach to survival that it becomes an indiputable truism. We're not there yet, but maybe it will happen someday in the utopian future. For the time being, the short-term quick fix of using violence to solve everything remains the tried and trusted "swiss army knife" of ideologies - useful in all situations.

[I Have a Clever Name]

So can an entity be 'not wrong' per say, but willing to accept the 'rightness' of others and still function successfully?

Somebody can believe they are right, yet still entertain the notion that they may be proven wrong. Factually, this is viable. Morality is to a large extent however based on prejudices. When people speak of ethical or rational approaches to morality they suffer under the illusion that they are thinking - in actuality they are rearranging prejudices. Kant is a prime example of this - he speaks of rational duties devoid of emotion or self-interest. Pretty appealing, except that without biologically grounded emotions we would have no sense of morality. Nietzsche comments on how people who seek to rationalize morality are usually filtrating and making abstract a 'desire of the heart'.

One attempt I made recently was to come at it from the perspective of morality's inherent purpose - the stability of society. But hey, thats an opinion too. And so is whatever I believe to be beneficial for society.

Because if the human mind considers something right, then it does not doubt itself. Otherwise it does not consider itself right. See the paradox?

Well, I like to think of myself as a person largely devoid of ego. I constantly doubt my own convictions - I am of the belief that all practical and efficient thinking, at some stage in life, is reliant on the doubt of everything. What follows is a tentative path of rediscovery, admitting that we have many limitations and ultimately validating a series of absolute truths and assumptions in relation to the perceptible world, based in turn on the assumption that this world actually exists. To put this in a clear example - I know that my knowledge of the world if dependent on senses. But could this sensory data be distorted? Am I really touching an object, or is that just a visual and nervous sensation to fool me? Am I a brain in a jar? Does the table exist when I no longer look at it?

Metaphysical and espistemological lines of enquiry aside - what we believe to be true is an assumption - its an opinion. You can doubt and critique your own opinions, provided you're not headstrong (which the majority are).

Even someone who says "I can admit wrong" thinks that they are right for saying "I can admit wrong."

Well, the affirmation that they can admit wrong is either a lie or an assumption. They can't know until they do discard a prejudice. Even I don't know for sure if I could drop my atheism, though I have in the past dropped other prejudices in light of evidence. Its a matter of induction.