Total Posts:16|Showing Posts:1-16
Jump to topic:

right and wrong

suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2013 7:21:40 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
when nothing is right, nothing is wrong.

when something is right, something that is not right is wrong.

right is therefore, the source of wrong.

so right is right or wrong?
Prodigenius
Posts: 209
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2013 8:07:37 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Think of rightness as positive charge and wrongness as negative charge.

Positive charge is a lack of a negative charge.
Live for the present, for it is a gift.

I surveyed 100 women and asked them what shampoo they used when showering, 98 of them said: How the hell did you get in here?
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2013 11:22:35 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I do, although even with mathematical logic it is still pretty confusing on how to distinguish positive from negative position.

For example if good is 1, not good is -1,
1 x -1 = -1

thus we can say that because we gave positive value to the foundation of ethical element, so that the negative value is created. If ethical foundation contain zero (grey area, neither good or bad) then there will be no negative point at all.

I hope I am making sense here.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2013 8:13:20 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/17/2013 7:21:40 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
when nothing is right, nothing is wrong.

Or, possibly, when nothing is right, EVERYTHING is wrong.

when something is right, something that is not right is wrong.

Not necessarily. Not right is not the same as wrong. There could be things that are right, things that are not right, things that are not wrong, and things that are wrong.

Things cannot be right AND wrong. Things cannot be right AND not right. Things cannot be wrong AND not wrong. Everything else is valid.

Things CAN be right AND not wrong. Things CAN be wrong AND not right. Things CAN be not wrong AND not right.

right is therefore, the source of wrong.

so right is right or wrong?
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2013 11:09:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/19/2013 8:13:20 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/17/2013 7:21:40 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
when nothing is right, nothing is wrong.

Or, possibly, when nothing is right, EVERYTHING is wrong.


Wrong, because wrongfulness serve as polar opposite to the concept of right, therefore it cannot exist without the right to serve as its target standpoint. and vise versa.

So if nothing is right, nothing is simply nothing and cannot be wrong.

when something is right, something that is not right is wrong.

Not necessarily. Not right is not the same as wrong. There could be things that are right, things that are not right, things that are not wrong, and things that are wrong.

Things cannot be right AND wrong. Things cannot be right AND not right. Things cannot be wrong AND not wrong. Everything else is valid.

Things CAN be right AND not wrong. Things CAN be wrong AND not right. Things CAN be not wrong AND not right.


Disagree. Thing can be nothing (neither right nor wrong) only when nothing is right, if something is right, not doing the right thing, is wrong.

Let's say if donate money is good, doing the opposite which is not donate money will then, be bad.

Thus, unless morality is meaningless, there cannot be thing that is not right and still not wrong.

if zero is added to your multiplication, the only possible result is zero
right is therefore, the source of wrong.

so right is right or wrong?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2013 12:54:39 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/19/2013 11:09:13 PM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 5/19/2013 8:13:20 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/17/2013 7:21:40 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
when nothing is right, nothing is wrong.

Or, possibly, when nothing is right, EVERYTHING is wrong.


Wrong, because wrongfulness serve as polar opposite to the concept of right, therefore it cannot exist without the right to serve as its target standpoint. and vise versa.

So if nothing is right, nothing is simply nothing and cannot be wrong.

You have proven me correct. If nothing is right, then everything else (which is not nothing) is wrong.

What you seem to be saying is that Given nothing (and only nothing), nothing is right, and nothing is wrong.

However, I contend that this is not the only possibility. Given everything, if nothing (and only nothing) is right, then everything is wrong.

when something is right, something that is not right is wrong.

Not necessarily. Not right is not the same as wrong. There could be things that are right, things that are not right, things that are not wrong, and things that are wrong.

Things cannot be right AND wrong. Things cannot be right AND not right. Things cannot be wrong AND not wrong. Everything else is valid.

Things CAN be right AND not wrong. Things CAN be wrong AND not right. Things CAN be not wrong AND not right.


1) Disagree. Thing can be nothing (neither right nor wrong) only when nothing is right, if something is right, not doing the right thing, is wrong. 2) Let's say if donate money is good, doing the opposite which is not donate money will then, be bad. 3) Thus, unless morality is meaningless, there cannot be thing that is not right and still not wrong.

1) I can't parse out exactly what you are saying here. After some thought I think I parsed out my contention with your statements. You seem to think that something exists, only if it is right. But that's clearly not the case...if something is wrong, it exists as well. Do you deny this?

2) Well, there's donating money (giving money) and taking money. Giving money is good, taking money is bad. Not giving money is not good, but not necessarily bad. Not taking money is not bad, but not necessarily good.

3) I contend that there could be situations that are completely amoral, and for these specific situations, yes morality is meaningless.

if zero is added to your multiplication, the only possible result is zero

No idea where you're going here.

---

Interesting...I was not exactly sure of this when I first wrote it, but I am more sure of it after this latest comment.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2013 12:58:38 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/17/2013 8:07:37 AM, Prodigenius wrote:
Think of rightness as positive charge and wrongness as negative charge.

Positive charge is a lack of a negative charge.

Not true. Lack of negative charge can also be a lack of a positive charge as well.

You are ignoring the concept of zero.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2013 2:24:23 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Yes, all contrasts exist because their opposites exist. Otherwise, they would be meaningless.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2013 4:41:28 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
However, I contend that this is not the only possibility. Given everything, if nothing (and only nothing) is right, then everything is wrong.

when something is right, something that is not right is wrong.

Not necessarily. Not right is not the same as wrong. There could be things that are right, things that are not right, things that are not wrong, and things that are wrong.

Things cannot be right AND wrong. Things cannot be right AND not right. Things cannot be wrong AND not wrong. Everything else is valid.

Things CAN be right AND not wrong. Things CAN be wrong AND not right. Things CAN be not wrong AND not right.


Well, I guest you can say that. However I it will only agree that morality in this sense is meaningless because in the end it is equal to nothing which therefore is equal to
1.everything is right,
2.nothing is right
3.nothing is wrong.
4. it equals to everything

Thus in this context nothing is exist but nothing itself which mean morality is void.

Note that I always believe morality is the way you point at what you accept and not accept. When, for you, morality is void, it means you do not point.

1) Disagree. Thing can be nothing (neither right nor wrong) only when nothing is right, if something is right, not doing the right thing, is wrong. 2) Let's say if donate money is good, doing the opposite which is not donate money will then, be bad. 3) Thus, unless morality is meaningless, there cannot be thing that is not right and still not wrong.

1) I can't parse out exactly what you are saying here. After some thought I think I parsed out my contention with your statements. You seem to think that something exists, only if it is right. But that's clearly not the case...if something is wrong, it exists as well. Do you deny this?

2) Well, there's donating money (giving money) and taking money. Giving money is good, taking money is bad. Not giving money is not good, but not necessarily bad. Not taking money is not bad, but not necessarily good.

3) I contend that there could be situations that are completely amoral, and for these specific situations, yes morality is meaningless.

if zero is added to your multiplication, the only possible result is zero

No idea where you're going here.

---

My idea is exactly what Freedo explained, contrast can only exist when something is apart from each other. You point this yourself "when nothing is right everything is also wrong" which I further point that it equal to nothing.

If donation is right aka what you accept, not donate will be wrong or what you not accept, stealing will be very wrong or what you strongly oppose. What I am trying to say is that "oppose" is on the same spectrum as "not accept" and not a separate entity.

There can not be anything in between because what if wrong = everything you are not accept, and right = everything you accept, nothing which = everything else will fall either in right side or wrong side because you can not agree and disagree on the same thing at the same time.

Confusing, I knew, I taken an hour myself just try to understand what I am try to say and how to explain this to you
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2013 8:19:52 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/20/2013 4:41:28 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
However, I contend that this is not the only possibility. Given everything, if nothing (and only nothing) is right, then everything is wrong.

when something is right, something that is not right is wrong.

Not necessarily. Not right is not the same as wrong. There could be things that are right, things that are not right, things that are not wrong, and things that are wrong.

Things cannot be right AND wrong. Things cannot be right AND not right. Things cannot be wrong AND not wrong. Everything else is valid.

Things CAN be right AND not wrong. Things CAN be wrong AND not right. Things CAN be not wrong AND not right.


Well, I guest you can say that. However I it will only agree that morality in this sense is meaningless because in the end it is equal to nothing which therefore is equal to

So, what you are saying here is that you will only accept the condition "Given nothing, and only nothing". In which case, we agree to disagree.

1.everything is right,
2.nothing is right
3.nothing is wrong.
4. it equals to everything

Thus in this context nothing is exist but nothing itself which mean morality is void.

Your logic does not follow. It assumes nothing and only nothing, yet talks about "everything", which is "not nothing".

Note that I always believe morality is the way you point at what you accept and not accept. When, for you, morality is void, it means you do not point.

1) Disagree. Thing can be nothing (neither right nor wrong) only when nothing is right, if something is right, not doing the right thing, is wrong. 2) Let's say if donate money is good, doing the opposite which is not donate money will then, be bad. 3) Thus, unless morality is meaningless, there cannot be thing that is not right and still not wrong.

1) I can't parse out exactly what you are saying here. After some thought I think I parsed out my contention with your statements. You seem to think that something exists, only if it is right. But that's clearly not the case...if something is wrong, it exists as well. Do you deny this?

2) Well, there's donating money (giving money) and taking money. Giving money is good, taking money is bad. Not giving money is not good, but not necessarily bad. Not taking money is not bad, but not necessarily good.

3) I contend that there could be situations that are completely amoral, and for these specific situations, yes morality is meaningless.

if zero is added to your multiplication, the only possible result is zero

No idea where you're going here.

---

My idea is exactly what Freedo explained, contrast can only exist when something is apart from each other. You point this yourself "when nothing is right everything is also wrong" which I further point that it equal to nothing.

No, that was not my point. My point was that your core assumptions can be changed. Your core assumptions assume only nothing. If you assume there is "something", that "something" becomes "everything" in contrast to "nothing".

If "nothing" and only nothing is right, then "everything" is wrong. Not "also wrong", just wrong. Everything is NOT nothing; to say that "I further point that it [everything] equal to nothing" is a fallacious conclusion to reach.

1) If donation is right aka what you accept, not donate will be wrong or what you not accept, 2) stealing will be very wrong or what you strongly oppose. 3) What I am trying to say is that "oppose" is on the same spectrum as "not accept" and not a separate entity.

1) On the bolded, no. If donating is right aka what I accept, then not donating would be "not right", or what I "do not accept".

2) You are adding conditions here. So, there is right, wrong, and very wrong. Is there "very right"? Is there "neither wrong nor right?" Once you make an argument, if you change your assumptions, then it becomes pointless to continue arguing. You need to be able to state the criteria upon which your case is built, and then stick to that criteria.

3) That would seem to go against the definition of "oppose". Math is a simple example of "right and wrong". Let's say positive numbers are right, and negative numbers are wrong. +2 is right, its opposite is -2, which is wrong. What about zero? It is not the opposite of +2 or -2...it is neither right nor wrong.

There can not be anything in between because what if wrong = everything you are not accept, and right = everything you accept, nothing which = everything else will fall either in right side or wrong side because you can not agree and disagree on the same thing at the same time.

You are ignoring the concept of zero. If that's how you want to take it, that's your choice. I suppose my entries here would simply note there is another choice, and that other choice is much more pertinent to how things work.

Confusing, I knew, I taken an hour myself just try to understand what I am try to say and how to explain this to you

Interesting discussion. I was not sure I would convince myself before engaging in this, but as of now I'm quite convinced of my logic.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2013 8:22:35 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/20/2013 8:19:52 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/20/2013 4:41:28 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:

1) On the bolded, no. If donating is right aka what I accept, then not donating would be "not right", or what I "do not accept".

Again, to put this in math terms, If positive is right and negative is wrong, then not positive would be not right. Is it possible to be not positive and not negative? Yes, zero.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2013 11:15:44 AM
Posted: 3 years ago

Interesting...I was not exactly sure of this when I first wrote it, but I am more sure of it after this latest comment.

Not surprise, I am actually quite convince by your logic too. However there is some point of conflict that I can simply feel. I am not even sure that it did truly exist or my feeling is simply wrong so if you're not boring with this yet, feel free to give me your comment as mush as you like.

Back to the story, assume that the understanding of morality as percieve by us would equal to

XY = O

where X = natural moral value of object Y = your perception of morality in the world (say if it is zero, than you are moral nihilist who can not distinguish moral value from one another, if more or less than zero than you are sensitive to moral to various degree) O = is morality as understood by you

Y can be 0, or more, or less because perception of man can be changed depending on his environment or state of mind.

X, however, is 1 and can only be 1 because mathematical logic and physical object value is absolute. For example if 1 is plus with 1 the result will be 2 no matter what. Your perception can be changed, and its final value may be affect, however a man is killed = a man is killed no matter how you called it. Thus it can not be zero because, if it is, regardless of the different in our perception, we must have exact moral logic in every matter (obviously not the case). It can not be any positive number but 1 because if it is any number else when you perceive it in its exact value, you will not see its actual value. for example, if X = 2 and you now changed your perception to 2 too, instead of see it final value as 2, you will see it as 4, which if this is the case it will be impossible to do logic and mathematical question because our sense of logic is warped. Therefore the X value is 1 and only 1.

Under this equation, the only way you can perceive the world as 0 is either because of your perception is 0, thus morality is indifferent to you. In other word, if you closely perceived thing with logic, you will always able to give a proper value to something vaguely consider as amoral. for example, go back to our donation example, you may perceive donation as good (accept) stealing is bad (not accept) and doing nothing as neutral (neither accept nor not accept). However you can not do both at the same time (obviously, not accept and not accept, what does that mean?). So in fact not donate which is neutral to you is in fact, undecided because yo don not fully understand its value yet so don't know whether it is right or wrong. So if you put your mind in to determining its morality value and successful, it will become either good or bad.

thus there is only good and bad and undecided but no amoral unless you perceive everything as amoral altogether.
TheElderScroll
Posts: 643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2013 11:22:59 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/17/2013 7:21:40 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
when nothing is right, nothing is wrong.

when something is right, something that is not right is wrong.

right is therefore, the source of wrong.

so right is right or wrong?

So nothing is right, then everything is not right. Assuming that not right = wrong. Then you have something like: when nothing is right, everything is wrong (not nothing is wrong).

When something is right, you cannot readily say something like: something is wrong . It may be possible that everything is right (imply that something is right).

Therefore, right is not the source of wrong as they are mutually exclusive.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2013 11:45:06 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/17/2013 7:21:40 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
when nothing is right, nothing is wrong.

when something is right, something that is not right is wrong.

right is therefore, the source of wrong.

so right is right or wrong?

It isn't meaningful to apply rules internal to a system to the system itself in this way. A certain move in chess may be right or wrong in the given circumstances (or good and bad, with varying degrees of each), but outside of the game of chess there is no meaning attached to the proposition "pawn king 4 is a good move", since the meaning is inherent to the context of the system the rules describe.
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2013 2:30:10 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/22/2013 11:22:59 AM, TheElderScroll wrote:
At 5/17/2013 7:21:40 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
when nothing is right, nothing is wrong.

when something is right, something that is not right is wrong.

right is therefore, the source of wrong.

so right is right or wrong?

So nothing is right, then everything is not right. Assuming that not right = wrong. Then you have something like: when nothing is right, everything is wrong (not nothing is wrong).

When something is right, you cannot readily say something like: something is wrong . It may be possible that everything is right (imply that something is right).

Therefore, right is not the source of wrong as they are mutually exclusive.

err, no something is different from everything, something is one in all while everything is all itself. The different is when it is something it is possible to exclude certain thing from your explanation i.e. some fruits is ripe = there are fruits that is ripe and frit that is not ripe, while all fruits is ripe = every single fruits is ripe.

The reason why when all thing is wrong = all thing is right is because when everything in the universe have the same moral value, there will be no room for distinction of right and wrong. Meaning you can call it whatever you like, the end result will be the same: meaningless.
Emmo
Posts: 2
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2013 2:36:50 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Hie guys please check out my debate... post comments and vote. Vote for the best person with the best argument. First few debates that i've had and would like both positive and negative input

Abortion is not murder, and cannot be regarded as murder
http://www.debate.org...