Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Underground eXperts United File 436
### ###
### ###
### #### ### ### ### ####
### ### ##### ### ###
### ### ### ### ###
### ### ##### ### ###
########## ### ### ##########
### ###
### ###
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
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
