96 lines
5.1 KiB
Plaintext
96 lines
5.1 KiB
Plaintext
|
|
### ###
|
|
### ###
|
|
### #### ### ### ### ####
|
|
### ### ##### ### ###
|
|
### ### ### ### ###
|
|
### ### ##### ### ###
|
|
########## ### ### ##########
|
|
### ###
|
|
### ###
|
|
|
|
Underground eXperts United
|
|
|
|
Presents...
|
|
|
|
####### ## ## ####### # # ## ## ####### #######
|
|
## ## ## ## ##### ## ## # ## ##
|
|
#### ## ## #### # # ####### #### #######
|
|
## ## ## ## ##### ## # ## ## ##
|
|
## ## ####### ####### # # ## ####### #######
|
|
|
|
[ Conceptual Clarification: Right ] [ By The GNN ]
|
|
|
|
|
|
____________________________________________________________________
|
|
____________________________________________________________________
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CONCEPTUAL CLARIFICATION: RIGHT
|
|
by THE GNN/DualCrew-Shining/uXu
|
|
|
|
|
|
Does it make sense to say that something is obviously 'right'? No! some
|
|
quickly reply, and state that 'everything is relative'. In other words,
|
|
there exist no objective properties of 'right' (and 'wrong' for that sake).
|
|
Depending upon situation, culture or former education, the concept of what
|
|
is right vary to that extent that no class of actions or beliefs can be
|
|
regarded as objectively right, leaving us with mere subjective rightness to
|
|
rely on. Thus, 'right' is equated with 'what we think/believe is right',
|
|
nothing more, nothing less, end of story.
|
|
As you probably already have realized, these simple claims are really no
|
|
arguments for the thesis that there are no such things as objective
|
|
rightness. They are merely assumptions. Nevertheless, they are very common
|
|
assumptions, and ought to be taken seriously. But are these assumptions
|
|
really well-put?
|
|
Let us dogmatically take it for granted that there is no objective
|
|
rightness, only subjective, and see what will happen. To begin, let us also
|
|
uncontroversially define 'right' as close to 'rational'; i.e., that when we
|
|
claim that an action was right, we mean that it was good for the person
|
|
since it led him to a goal he wanted to achieve. Thus, if a person tries to
|
|
achieve a state of affairs, we claim that he did the 'right' things if his
|
|
actions and beliefs in fact led him to that state. If he ended up in some
|
|
other state, we conclude that he did the 'wrong' things. (All things being
|
|
equal (mutatis mutandis), 'person' can well be 'a group of people', 'a cat',
|
|
'a computer', etc.; the definition need not be conceptually connected with
|
|
'a single individual'.)
|
|
Down to business. An example: I wish to achieve a happy life. I come to
|
|
believe that I will achieve this state by drinking a glass of water. On the
|
|
table in front of me, there are two glasses, (1) and (2). I strongly believe
|
|
that (1) contains water, and that (2) contains poison. Therefore, I act and
|
|
drink (1), and drop dead as I was mistaken; it was in fact the opposite way
|
|
around, (1) contained poison, and (2) water.
|
|
Few people would not conclude that I did the wrong thing. I wished to
|
|
achieve a state of happy life, but ended up dead.
|
|
But... if we deny that there is such a thing as objective rightness, the
|
|
above example makes no sense at all. If subjective rightness is everything
|
|
that counts, well, then I did the 'right' by drinking the poison - because I
|
|
actually believed that I would reach the desired state of affairs by doing
|
|
so. Obviously this run counter with the agreed definition on rationality,
|
|
and we ought to accept the fact that not everything is relative, and that
|
|
there are things that are objectively right (and wrong).
|
|
Do you feel uncomfortable by this conclusion? Maybe you are that kind of
|
|
person who loves to claim that 'everything is relative to situation and
|
|
person' and that there are no such things as 'objective rightness'? Well, do
|
|
not fear. Because you have probably talked about objective and subjective
|
|
VALUES: goodness and badness. And the question about if there are such
|
|
objective values are very different.
|
|
Keep that in mind next time.
|
|
|
|
Appendix 1: Perhaps you think that I am merely wriggling with words,
|
|
dodging the real questions. Even if that is so, many controversies are in
|
|
fact built upon conceptual confusions, which means that this kind of
|
|
wriggling is necessary if we in fact wish to get down to the real questions.
|
|
Wham, bam, thank you 'mam.
|
|
|
|
Appendix 2: Fuel for the hyper sceptic; on the other hand, "...the mission
|
|
of all true philosophy is to take basic accepted concepts and turn them into
|
|
complicated and incomprehensible 'clarifications'." (UXU-384: 'Philosophy
|
|
For Beginners'.)
|
|
|
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
uXu #436 Underground eXperts United 1998 uXu #436
|
|
http://www.uxu.org
|
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|