Total Posts:16|Showing Posts:1-16

# right and wrong

 Posts: 1,115 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 5/17/2013 7:21:40 AMPosted: 7 years agowhen 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?
 Posts: 209 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 5/17/2013 8:07:37 AMPosted: 7 years agoThink 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?
 Posts: 1,115 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 5/18/2013 11:22:35 AMPosted: 7 years agoI 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 = -1thus 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.
 Posts: 11,196 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 5/19/2013 8:13:20 AMPosted: 7 years agoAt 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?
 Posts: 1,115 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 5/19/2013 11:09:13 PMPosted: 7 years agoAt 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 zeroright is therefore, the source of wrong.so right is right or wrong?
 Posts: 11,196 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 5/20/2013 12:54:39 AMPosted: 7 years agoAt 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 zeroNo 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?
 Posts: 11,196 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 5/20/2013 12:58:38 AMPosted: 7 years agoAt 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?
 Posts: 21,827 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 5/20/2013 2:24:23 AMPosted: 7 years agoYes, all contrasts exist because their opposites exist. Otherwise, they would be meaningless.The Beast Dakota
 Posts: 1,115 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 5/20/2013 4:41:28 AMPosted: 7 years agoHowever, 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 to1.everything is right,2.nothing is right3.nothing is wrong.4. it equals to everythingThus 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 zeroNo 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