Pure Rightness

Pure example:

Jazz music requires the greatest musicianship.

Little more serious:

The death penalty is absolutely the best justice for 'undeniably proven' criminals.

Even more:

Rape is acceptable.

--

I am right.

If not, why not?

What is right? What is right 'to you'? Who dictates what is right and what is wrong?

Where does the concept of right and wrong come from and how do you feel we apply this concept in modern life?

My two pence:

'Rightness' seems to cause more trouble that it is suppose to avoid. But what if there is a 'Pure rightness'? What if he blue BMW absolutely is the 'right' car and nobody should buy otherwise? Variety and 'opinion' is not an answer because they would be in violation of P(ure) R(ightness).

What if everybody must enjoy Jazz because it would be completely incorrect not to, no matter their worthless 'opinion' (in the face of PR)?

Would they world be a more enjoyable place if PR had an undeniably true value and place?

Is rape right? Why do we always imagine the man chasing the woman? Is it less right or more right if a woman chases a man and rapes him? Some may consider that a man's dream! Funny, isn't it? Why doesn't the girl enjoy some easy sex?

I know, I know I am ruffling feathers but that is absolutely what I want to do to provoke conversation and input.

Why could it be 'wrong' to enjoy a blue BMW, Jazz music and a quick allyway rape? (the last one being the provoker, of course). It's easy to say 'Rape is just wrong', or 'How can you possibly enjoy Jazz?' If you think it's acceptable (right) to listen to Jazz music, why can't Mr X (or Miss Y) go and have a quickie at their heart's content? Because the law says so? The law also says many utterly laughable things (as can be found here: www.dumblaws.com... ) so saying something is 'the law' is a weak, weak argument.

I am right. You are wrong.

Over to you...
(and please, the 'rape' example is purely to provoke by extreme example and in no way represents my own way of life!)

I touched up on this earlier on another forum
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Basically, what you are talking about is what Taoism refers to as "Dualism" or "Duality". The thread above has a more in-depth reply, so if you wish to read you may.

Well I'm glad you don't take rape so seriously that it would stop you from using it to provoke a reaction.

PS

You're wrong.

over to you (i'm out)

1. How are Mayan Lines related to Rightness in philosophy?

2. My comment is only wrong because society (you included) says it is wrong. I'm interested in the philosophy behind that situation and not the opinion (which, it must be said, is not mine, but a point of reference).

I'm sorry that you're too afraid to discuss a taboo (according to society) subject. Would it have been acceptable to replace rape with murder? Perhaps adultary? Stealing? Would tax evasion be more suitable for you?

Rape is an extreme example for a reason, but it represents something considered 'wrong' by all society. It's part of my discussion basis: What makes right, right and could a Pure Rightness be considered.

Again, I'm sorry that 'rape' is too serious a crime. Replace it with speeding if you want.

reply to post by DB340


Morality is a thing of relativity. Something can be "right" or "wrong" in relation to a specific intent or desired outcome.

Some intents we humans tend to have in common, that are part of our biological evolution- like the intent to survive. That common intent makes murder something we tend to consider "wrong" as a universal or static law.

But the word "murder" specifies killing someone against their will.
"Euthansia" of someone who wants to die and whose will is not transgressed, is another matter entirely, and falls out of that system towards that intent.


There are collective intents- a group or community outlines an intent or goal they wish to achieve together.
That creates a set of morals relative to that goal, which become part of their culture.

Systems have right and wrong catagories within them, and what is right within one system can be wrong in another.

In your example, rape is not a quickie with a stranger. Rape is doing that quickie against the will of that other.

Casual sex between people without emotional bonds is not rape. Yes, women can enjoy that and do.
Many women have some fantasies about forced sex this way, and yet..... they never enjoy being raped!
BUT
pretending to be raped and taken by force with a lover can be exciting and fulfilling- precisely because it is not REAL rape. Because it allows them to face and experience that which they fear. Repulsion and attraction are just as closely linked as love and hate- the only distinguishing factor is will.

You can be afraid of heights, and get a thrill from skydiving,
But not get any pleasure at all from having someone push you unexpectedly out of a plane.

One of those biological commonalities between us humans is the will to choose. Even the choice to not choose is a choice. That is- I can choose to become passive and powerless in circumstance and context, and enjoy it. But having another choose for me that I will be passive and powerless is something I feel a biological repulsion to, like most people. So we see that as a universal and static moral.

But for animals, for example, it might not be. They might not feel that desire to choose to who and what they become powerless to, in which case, the moral no longer applies. They might, I don't know. I'm just pointing out that no matter how absolute we may view some morals, they might ALL be relative.

to me it's very simple, you do something to someone ELSE that they don't like, you need to examine why and that's what the generation have done (sort of) and have developed a system of morals and although law may greatly differ across the board, morality has very common veins all over the place.....so who decides it? SOMEONE ELSE.... the victim of course. what does god say? talk to me. it is about outcry. outcry is a response to strife, what a person considers strife is some of what they taught but mostly what they feel to be right.

rape is always wrong because it is conflicting the victim... it is against the personal sovereignty of a person.
When it is acceptable is when it is not rape.... and we all know that is where it gets dicey.

reply to post by DB340


I think you'd be singing a different tune if you were to be raped by a man in an alleyway—and it wouldn't be jazz.

Originally posted by DB340
1. How are Mayan Lines related to Rightness in philosophy?

2. My comment is only wrong because society (you included) says it is wrong. I'm interested in the philosophy behind that situation and not the opinion (which, it must be said, is not mine, but a point of reference).

I'm sorry that you're too afraid to discuss a taboo (according to society) subject. Would it have been acceptable to replace rape with murder? Perhaps adultary? Stealing? Would tax evasion be more suitable for you?

Rape is an extreme example for a reason, but it represents something considered 'wrong' by all society. It's part of my discussion basis: What makes right, right and could a Pure Rightness be considered.

Again, I'm sorry that 'rape' is too serious a crime. Replace it with speeding if you want.

Sorry, the post was in reference to Mayan prophecies but if you read the post you'd see what I was referring to on dualism.

What is considered Right and Wrong are both determined by the culture and society where the given event takes place. There is no universal/absolute/pure "Right" in my opinion - it all comes down to interpretation of laws, social norms and cultural values. One could argue that the Conscience is an indicator of Right or Wrong, but this is heavily influenced by upbringing and past experience.

This is exactly my point. Everything is about 'social laws', 'beliefs', etc. We know a belief is not a fact, otherwise it wouldn't be a belief, would it? You can't believe that water boils at 75 degrees. If you do, that's your problem but the fact is, it boils at 100 degrees. Social laws are man-made and not set in stone by nature. Nature has its own laws set in stone and those are 'right' because they work naturally without a conscience. Nature would not say 'Ok, ok I won't kill this young child with bone cancer because it's wrong to take away a valuable person from the parents'. Nature (natural, universal rightness) says 'This child will die because this disease is doing this and that which degenerates that which the body needs and soon the body will lose'. It's only humans who have the emotion to make laws which don't upset us. Tough, but get over it.

This is my point. There is 'right' for us so we don't feel bad (and to soften up to the softies, or to not offend over-sensitive people) and there is what 'should' be right because it IS right, no matter what people feel or how they are offended.

In my first (random) exampes: If you don't like pasta, you are wrong. Why? Because nature (and this is purely for example) says that the tastebuds on a 'correctly-formed' tongue respond positively in the brain. When it works, you shoud like pasta (or any other food). If you do not, then you are wrong. You think you have a choice? Universal objects do not have a choice, so why should you?

If you drop me from a building, nature will not gently place me on the ground because that is wrong. It does not consider it's a Friday and my birthday is today (example). Thus, I believe (ok, I know) there is a thing called 'pure rightness', because I live in it.

Opinions, belief and offensiveness are purely emotion-based ideologies for humans. I see some animals display such emotions too (such as the dog which stayed with a related dog during the Japan earthquake period - that was amazing and does beg further discussion over animals being just as sensitive as we are). But my point is about humans and rightness for us.

Humanity would be better off if it lived according to a code of pure rightness. This is not a belief, it's a fact. It works for the physical world so it should work for us before we kill ourselves with bombs, starve ourselves through greed or make ourselves homeless through a combination of the previous two, with a little selfishness thrown in for good measure.

Do you think there is more than one 'pure rightness'? I don't. Gravity goes down and thrust makes you go up. A is A and B is B. Only us sensitive, emotion-fuelled humans defy natural rightness for our own selfish, over-sensitive reasons.

...