Sign in to follow this  
mererdog

Right To Be Wrong

Recommended Posts

Yes, when wrong is ambiguous and not specifically defined, or when the definition of wrong is also wrong.

Such as the wrongness of harboring escaped slaves, or using a drinking fountain not specified for your race.

If enough of the population say so, anything can be wrong, even if making it wrong is also wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hmmm...what is the difference between "being wrong" and "doing wrong"? It has been often remarked by theologian, philosopher, and mystic alike that the human condition is rife with imperfection and fallibility. Thus, being wrong is probably characterized more as an inevitability than a right. Of course, I could be wrong about this. But continuing in the lane, if thoughts are the genesis of action, if I am wrong about my perception or conception of reality, then it follows that "doing wrong" is also best characterized as an inevitability rather than a right. Even if I am right in my thinking, my own physical imperfections will probably mean that even if I am inclined to do "rightly" I probably still lack the ability, which again reinforces the idea that "doing wrong" is an inevitability.

As for rights, we probably define what kinds of rights we're talking about. Do we mean legal rights or natural rights? As for legal rights, we are free to do everything not validly designated a crime or infraction. So in that case, we are able to do some kinds of wrong. As for natural rights, if we subscribe to Lockean theory, we have liberty to do anything that does not violate the right to life.

Then there's the whole conundrum of what we mean by "being". Are we speaking existientially? Or do we just mean being mistaken? I need a latte for this...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People are wrong, its not a right as much as it is a state of being human.

Anything outside of the truth is wrong, and none of us are the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

Doing wrong has consequences, so I wouldn't define wrongful actions as a right, particulary when doing wrong

is detrimental to other people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just possessing the ability to perform an act does not mean that one should perform the act. There is a choice to do wrong, not a right to do wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think wrong can be defined thousands of ways by thousands of people. We all obey only the laws we feel are just and convenient and disobey laws we think are unjust (if we figure we can get away with it) and get in our way. Is that wrong? Probably depends on how many people think it is wrong. Our only "rights" are what our government (hopefully of the people) have granted us. Same as any other nation. God does not grant rights. There are no God given rights. Right to life? Just a legislative decision. If we do not have the right to live, we have no rights at all except to obey the laws of the land and feel lucky if we live in a land that isn't as bad as some of the others. That brings us back full circle to us obeying the laws we feel are just and convenient.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is nothing more wrong than being right to the disadvantage of another, unless that right is based on another's wrongful actions.

Start the merry-go-round!

Blessings Be,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think wrong can be defined thousands of ways by thousands of people. We all obey only the laws we feel are just and convenient and disobey laws we think are unjust (if we figure we can get away with it) and get in our way. Is that wrong? Probably depends on how many people think it is wrong. Our only "rights" are what our government (hopefully of the people) have granted us. Same as any other nation. God does not grant rights. There are no God given rights. Right to life? Just a legislative decision. If we do not have the right to live, we have no rights at all except to obey the laws of the land and feel lucky if we live in a land that isn't as bad as some of the others. That brings us back full circle to us obeying the laws we feel are just and convenient.

Are you saying that slave owners had a right to own slaves when it was granted by government?

Rights are not granted by government, they are only respected or violated by government, just as by other individuals.

Rights are a product and expression of sentient existence. In other words you grant your own rights.

The propose of government should be limited to addressing the conflict in the exercising of rights. If not, society is in all cases reduced to might makes right. Those who benefit from this generally do not see it as well as those who inevitably suffer from it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Governments can grant or refuse the "right" to own anything. Firearms, alcohol, gold, and yes, people. I am grateful that I can have a glass of whiskey, own and carry a pistol and I am equally if not more grateful that no person in my country is allowed by law to be enslaved. None of those "rights" are God given. Before one can declare something is "God given," one must determine which "God" they are referring to. The God of Abraham allowed slavery until the governments and civilizations matured to the point that it was no longer allowed. I am sure there are/were many other "Gods" that also allowed slavery or perhaps even required it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are we making a distinction between being "wrong" and "mistaken?" In any event -- who is the judge of right and wrong? How do we even define these terms in the abstract?

Who gets to decide what a "right" to do anything is? In the abstract. speaking of "rights" is not useful.

Edited by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do people ever have a right to do wrong?

Our military has "murdered" millions in the past 237 years under the guise of being "Right". Is that a right to do wrong?

No, if you ask Humanists.

Yes, if you ask the Pentagon (and what preceded it).

Then of course we enter into the debate of moral and ethical "right and wrong" vs. that of Lawful "right and wrong". The two can never be satisfied to the other definition. It is morally apprehensive to "kill" another human being, regardless of how lawful the action may be. (Home invasion, protection of family etc etc) To wit some of us have had the horrific circumstance to deal with.

While life may be sacred and sanctified unto itself, it is not "God given", "Government given" or any other "given"....the moment we are born we become subjected to whatever law of the land is in place in the location our birthing was done. If that happens to be in a "civil place" we consider ourselves 'lucky', if not societies around the world proclaim "poor you".

So the merry-go-round "goes round and round and the painted ponies go up and down". People are wrong in their Rights and right in their wrongs every moment of life....and if Rev Rattler is willing to take on this enormous challenge of dispensing "Justice"....Hail the King!

The rest of us may just burrow deeper into what we consider our Spiritual Journey and leave the driving to Greyhound! Our Spiritual Journey is one place where the lines of "right and wrong" are purely a moral and personal ethics choice, not a Lawful choice.

Blessings Be,

Blessings of Understanding,

Blessings of Peace,

"The spiritual journey does not consist of arriving at a new destination where a person gains what he did not have, or becomes what he is not. It consists in the dissipation of one's own ignorance concerning one's self and life, and gradual growth of that understanding, which begins a spiritual awakening." - Aldous Huxley

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Governments can grant or refuse the "right" to own anything. Firearms, alcohol, gold, and yes, people. I am grateful that I can have a glass of whiskey, own and carry a pistol and I am equally if not more grateful that no person in my country is allowed by law to be enslaved. None of those "rights" are God given. Before one can declare something is "God given," one must determine which "God" they are referring to. The God of Abraham allowed slavery until the governments and civilizations matured to the point that it was no longer allowed. I am sure there are/were many other "Gods" that also allowed slavery or perhaps even required it.

The government can only restrict the rights people already have, and distribute other peoples property.

Outside of gifts, owning is solely dependent on ones ability to acquire property.

People cannot be the property of others because they already have a current owner - themselves.

Self ownership is instantaneous and inalienable, only ending with death.

It also means that there will always be property that is not and cannot be owned in common.

Private property is a permanent reality, that is violated but never negated.

Old time slavery is no longer efficient enough. If you are forced to work you can rebel by not working to thwart the would be slave-owner. To be more sneaky they now wait until after you have already worked for what should be yours and they take the product of your labor by force. The only way to escape this form of slavery is to stop working and become dependent on the slave owner for your existence, funded by the labor of other slaves. So now it is the slaves themselves that perpetuate slavery.

God is not necessary to understand human rights or morality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you know I could only find ONE of these topics in the archive?! I'm gonna have a word with the admin around here....oh. yeah.

oops.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you know I could only find ONE of these topics in the archive?! I'm gonna have a word with the admin around here....oh. yeah.

oops.

Well played, sir.

:good:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do people ever have a right to do wrong?

~ Well... only if what is left is worse :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doing wrong has consequences, so I wouldn't define wrongful actions as a right, particulary when doing wrong

is detrimental to other people.

Ok. Here's something more specific for you....

Is worshiping false idols wrong? Do people ever have a right to worship false idols?

Just possessing the ability to perform an act does not mean that one should perform the act. There is a choice to do wrong, not a right to do wrong.

Does the fact that one should not perform an act mean that one should not be allowed to perform the act?

I should not eat sugar. Does that mean I have no right to eat sugar?

Our only "rights" are what our government (hopefully of the people) have granted us.

I grant you rights that the government does not,. Of course, that does you little good, as I have little ability to prevent you doing as you please....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Self ownership is instantaneous and inalienable, only ending with death.

Prove it. :balloon:

Edited by mererdog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this