• Announcements

    • Senior Lightworker Lucas

      Message from the office   07/13/2017

      There is an important message from the ULC Staff Office in the Admin Announcements & Maintenance forum. More info is on the way regarding new changes. The new area, Interpath Academia & Scholarship is open for creating new topics. We hope these areas will offer productive and insightful discussion. Please be sure to read the updated ULC Online Forum Statements, Rules & Policies, and the introductory post for each area. 
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
mererdog

Right To Be Wrong

28 posts in this topic

It depends on the definition of wrong, doesn't it? If you mean make simple mistakes, like messing up the amount of change someone is supposed to get back by a few cents, sure, it happens eh? The right to do wrong morally? Depends, I suppose. There are people that I know, and dislike by the way, who deliberately set out to do the opposite of what they think of as right. Steal, cheat, and so forth. Sure, they have the right to do that of course, and they suffer the consequences. What about murder? No, I don't think people have a right to murder each other. I guess it comes down to where one person's rights end and another's begin, really. As long as what they are doing doesn't infringe on my rights, I have no qualms with it. These are just speculations as to what you might mean by wrong, however, and if you mean something else and wish to clarify, I will try to be more specific. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just as there is no light without darkness, no hot without cold, there can be no right without wrong. Whether we have a "right" to wrong or not, often we are wrong and often without wanting to be wrong. I am curious as to the context of your question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its not so much that we have a right to wrong, but rather, we are all too stupid to be right all the time.

If a mouse goes after the cheese in a trap, its not so much that he's wrong, but that he just doesn't have the intellect to be right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These are just speculations as to what you might mean by wrong,

Spoiler alert: The whole point of the question is to get others to think about what the words mean to them...

I am curious as to the context of your question.

Originally, I was experimenting with the Socratic Method... It evolved into a generic conversation starter. Sometimes it falls flat, sometimes it sparks something nifty....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, civil disobedience is a form of a right to do wrong for the sake of a moral code of ethics.

Just as stated earlier, it depends on what the wrong is and whose rights are being exercised or restricted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The right of dissent, or, if you prefer, the right to be wrong, is surely fundamental to the existence of a democratic society. That’s the right that went first in every nation that stumbled down the trail toward totalitarianism.~ Edward R. Murrow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "Right" to be wrong, would consider there being a lawful correctness to someone's actions of being wrong. [The homeowner shot and killed the intruder that was holding his family captive at gunpoint in the room and had already shot his wife]

The right to be "Wrong", would imply there is only one (or very limited) correct actions/responses to a given scenario. Basically not following prescribed correct action or response due to an alternative choice being made available for that particular situation. [The Fire Chief allowed the building to burn to the ground because there was only enough water to save the surrounding buildings.]

In any case it would depend on the intended results from the actual actions. This does not always follow neatly within the guidelines of societal norms. Therefore, I would have to say under certain situations any person's action or response could be "right" by actualizing a "wrong". At a minimum, it could be justified by their own rationale.

Definitely an interesting posit.

Blessings of Peace,

And then again, I noticed the "Ye olde bait and switch" tag, therefore look forward to what switch the bait brings in! :rofl:

Edited by Atwater Vitki

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The title is "right to be wrong" because that's a familiar phrase. Most people are comfortable saying we all have a right to be wrong. The actual question asked is "Do people have a right to do wrong?" and people are way less comfortable with that one... Bait and switch...

Edited by mererdog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "Right to be wrong" about what? Career choice? Religion? Economic theory? Getting married? Parenting? "Wrong" in the abstract?

Are we talking about being "wrong" or being "mistaken?"

The question is meaningless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its not so much that we have a right to be wrong, but an inherit given that we are wrong more than we're right.. We have a right to be wrong because there is no alternative. Being wrong is part of the learning experience that makes us human. Even when we're positive that we're right, we're often wrong about being right.. Is a lion killing its prey wrong? Is a bird crapping on your car wrong? Is a tornado leveling your house wrong? No, its just natural, just as nearly everything we do wrong is our nature. So yes, we have a right to be wrong, but only until our being wrong hurts someone else, then our right to be wrong ends with some jail time.

We also have a right to be wrong because what's right for one person is wrong to another. The right to be wrong might be better described as 'Freedom'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its not so much that we have a right to be wrong, but an inherit given that we are wrong more than we're right.. We have a right to be wrong because there is no alternative. Being wrong is part of the learning experience that makes us human. Even when we're positive that we're right, we're often wrong about being right.. Is a lion killing its prey wrong? Is a bird crapping on your car wrong? Is a tornado leveling your house wrong? No, its just natural, just as nearly everything we do wrong is our nature. So yes, we have a right to be wrong, but only until our being wrong hurts someone else, then our right to be wrong ends with some jail time.

We also have a right to be wrong because what's right for one person is wrong to another. The right to be wrong might be better described as 'Freedom'.

Hi Dan,

I just wanted to comment that I think that was very well put :).

Edited by Umbraedominus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I don't think people have a right to murder each other.

The word murder exists to diffentiate between killing people when you have a right to do it and killing people when you don't have a right to do it. As such, the question is not whether you have a right to murder, but whether killing someone can be wrong, and yet not be murder. If that makes sense to you? Edited by mererdog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, civil disobedience is a form of a right to do wrong for the sake of a moral code of ethics.

Just as stated earlier, it depends on what the wrong is and whose rights are being exercised or restricted.

My understanding is that civil disobedience is justified by the notion that breaking the law is not always wrong. That wouldn't be a right to do wrong, just a difference between illegal and wrong?

The question is meaningless.

It has exactly as much meaning as you bring to it. Which is kind of cool, if you think about it. Also, that is not the question I asked. ;) Edited by mererdog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We also have a right to be wrong because what's right for one person is wrong to another.

Would that not make the Golden Rule really, really bad advice to give?

The right to be wrong might be better described as 'Freedom'.

And yet, if you look carefully, most will define freedom only in terms of a right to do right. Once they decide what you.are doing is wrong, they will say you have no right to do it. As you say, I don't have a right to be wrong if it hurts someone else. It brings up an old joke.

Wise men claim our right to swing our fist ends at another man's nose. Wiser men disagree, because they know men often stick their noses where they don't belong...

Edited by mererdog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My understanding is that civil disobedience is justified by the notion that breaking the law is not always wrong. That wouldn't be a right to do wrong, just a difference between illegal and wrong?

It has exactly as much meaning as you bring to it. Which is kind of cool, if you think about it. Also, that is not the question I asked. ;)

No, civil disobedience is breaking the law with the justification that the law is wrong. But if breaking laws isn't wrong, why have them? And in this case the lines may be blurred between illegal and wrong so as to view them as one and the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, civil disobedience is breaking the law with the justification that the law is wrong. But if breaking laws isn't wrong, why have them? And in this case the lines may be blurred between illegal and wrong so as to view them as one and the same.

I am probably the wrong person to ask why we should have laws. However, the theory seems to be that you need rules backed by violence to force others to behave morally, but where those who make and/or enforce the rules are not moral, the moral thing is to break the rules and/or interfere with their enforcement....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would that not make the Golden Rule really, really bad advice to give?

And yet, if you look carefully, most will define freedom only in terms of a right to do right. Once they decide what you.are doing is wrong, they will say you have no right to do it. As you say, I don't have a right to be wrong if it hurts someone else. It brings up an old joke.

Wise men claim our right to swing our fist ends at another man's nose. Wiser men disagree, because they know men often stick their noses where they don't belong...

No, the golden rule is nonjudgmental. Treating others as you would have them treat you has nothing to do with whether they are right or wrong. Its all inclusive and forbids bringing our own bias into the rule. Its why I would sell someone a cake even when they're different, because I'd expect a Baker to bake me a cake even if he thinks I'm a weirdo, On the other hand, I would not sell a convicted felon a gun, but would also expect the same treatment in return.

Freedom is more than just doing that which is deemed right, its also; Free to find your own way, free to stand up and say, you be you and I'll be me, were the Pepsi people, feeling free, feeling free.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, the golden rule is nonjudgmental. Treating others as you would have them treat you has nothing to do with whether they are right or wrong. Its all inclusive and forbids bringing our own bias into the rule.

? "as you would have them do unto you" seems an obvious reference to personal bias. Isn't it just a fancy way of saying "the way you would want them to treat you"? Wants are biases, right?

I want you to be nice to me. The Golden Rule tells me to be nice to you. But some people want you to be mean to them. Some people want to be hurt. Right?

As for freedom, I was once told the true test of freedom is whether or not you can defy the will of anyone you want without getting punished....

Edited by mererdog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0