Is there such a thing as a wrong opinion?

just me said:
Faith is not assumptions.
Click to expand...

Faith is unquestioned certainty in assumptions. That is all it is.

You do not understand what others have gone through to believe in what they believe; you think it is all about life circumstances. You leave out the most important part of all of it: the spiritual experience.
Click to expand...

The "spiritual" experience is nothing but an illusion generated by intuition. Intuition seeks to find connections between concepts that may or may not exist. It dissociates from our ego and becomes a perceived separate entity from which we can draw inspiration or creativity.

I do not go around condemning homosexual behavior, but you cannot allow in your own mind someone to believe the way they want to believe. It all goes back to the same issue every time. I do not see your actions as a form of personal morality, but maybe you do.
Click to expand...

I repeat. I don't care what you believe. You can choose to be Christian. What I want is for you to question your beliefs just once. I want you to seriously consider the possibility that you are wrong. For awhile, even if it is just for a few minutes, I want you to experience what it is like to question everything you believe.

I understand your thought processes better than you think, but your assessments leave question to your motives.
Click to expand...

I have discerned that while I can't get you to change what you believe, through the power of influencing your experience, I can change who you are. That is fundamentally more powerful. I have no more issue with you believing in Christianity than I have with children believing in Santa Clause. It is your certainty in your beliefs that I want to challenge.
 
Satya said:
How does one form an "objective judgement of what is good for people and society" when the standard for that judgement is based entirely upon a subjective opinion?
Click to expand...

This is going to sound teleological.

One can objectively judge what is good for a society in respect of that society's purpose.

Examples
Military society. An army is a type of society, whose purpose is to defend a larger society from external threats/attacks. In such a military society a definite, effective chain of command is absolutely necessary, so in this kind of society disobeying orders which are related to defending the local society, or attacking aggressors is objectively wrong.

Civil society. A civilisation exists to make it possible for people to live better lives than they could as nomads, or solitary agriculturalists. That in itself requires that people generally contribute something to the rest of society, so that all may enjoy a common benefit - even if it be by paying taxes. Besides the basics necessary for life, what constitutes 'a better life' is strongly influenced by philosophical and religious-moral concepts. Many ancient Greek philosophers were of the opinion that 'the better life' required leisure time, to enable the cultivation of the intellectual life, for example.

etc.
 
just me said:
There are people raised in Saudi Arabia by Muslim families that are now Christians...
Click to expand...

This is extremely dangerous in Saudi Arabia because Saudi Arabia forbids conversion by a muslim (apostasy) and punishes it by death.

Flavus Aquila said:
This is going to sound teleological.

One can objectively judge what is good for a society in respect of that society's purpose.

Examples
Military society. An army is a type of society, whose purpose is to defend a larger society from external threats/attacks. In such a military society a definite, effective chain of command is absolutely necessary, so in this kind of society disobeying orders which are related to defending the local society, or attacking aggressors is objectively wrong.
Click to expand...

Is it objectively wrong to disobey orders to torture an enemy prisoner even if such torture is rationalized as a means of "defending the local society, or attacking aggressors"?
 
arsal said:
If not then does that mean that pedophiles and serial killers have an equal opinion to your own?

Yes.

It's important to make a distinction here between having an opinion, and acting on an opinion. The former does not matter because it is self-contained, and therefore, of equal value to any self-contained opinions I might have. It only matters if said opinion is acted upon, and thus quantified.
Click to expand...

Thoughts influence action necessarily. If we take the judgment of wrong to be the suggestion that some phenomena would be better if replaced by some other known phenomena (this notion needs to be qualified further but that's the basic idea), in this case that one kind of thought should be taken out and replaced by others, then it seems surely to be the case that we can apply the notion of wrongness to thought in itself.

Our environment influences our thoughts anyway, so it seems reasonable to influence the thoughts of others, but whether we should be able to control the thoughts of others, e.g. acting in a way that goes against someone's Will on account of something they have thought, is less clear. Whether it is right to judge the thoughts of another as wrong, I certainly do this of my own thoughts, these thoughts are not productive, and thus I should block them out so productive thoughts may replace them.
 
Satya, you have no power over me. I stand steadfast in my faith, unwavering. You can't always get what you want. Faith is the substance of all things hoped for; the evidence of things not seen. Faith is a very powerful force. Call it what you want. I question how you can do your job, as your mindset seems too much against the grain of helping people with problems by trying to cast doubt into their minds. What you really want is for people to think the way you think.
 
just me said:
Satya, you have no power over me. I stand steadfast in my faith, unwavering. You can't always get what you want. Faith is the substance of all things hoped for; the evidence of things not seen. Faith is a very powerful force. Call it what you want. I question how you can do your job, as your mindset seems too much against the grain of helping people with problems by trying to cast doubt into their minds. What you really want is for people to think the way you think.
Click to expand...

You really only see one facet of me on this forum. I'm a much less one dimensional individual in the real world. If I met you as a client, I would certainly work within your belief system.

You are right though. I have no power over you. I certainly can't force you to question your beliefs. I cannot dictate where you put your trust, nor should I try to do so.
 
Torture would seem to contradict a more fundamental morality, than that which applies to the military.

The military exists for the sake of society, and society exists for the sake of improving the way people live. To torture someone would seem to contradict the purpose of society.

However, there are exceptions - if someone was withholding information, so that other people's well-being was to be severely and unjustly interfered with, then I think torture, to extract information would be justified.

For example, if a biological weapon has been deployed in a civilian area, with some sort of ongoing effect, or on some sort of timer, but the individuals responsible for its deployment would not reveal its location (and time did not permit other forms of searching/investigation) - I would not hesitate to use torture to extract the information.


[MENTION=1678]Norton[/MENTION];
 
Flavus Aquila said:
Torture would seem to contradict a more fundamental morality, than that which applies to the military.

The military exists for the sake of society, and society exists for the sake of improving the way people live. To torture someone would seem to contradict the purpose of society.

However, there are exceptions - if someone was withholding information, so that other people's well-being was to be severely and unjustly interfered with, then I think torture, to extract information would be justified.

For example, if a biological weapon has been deployed in a civilian area, with some sort of ongoing effect, or on some sort of timer, but the individuals responsible for its deployment would not reveal its location (and time did not permit other forms of searching/investigation) - I would not hesitate to use torture to extract the information.


@Norton ;
Click to expand...

Why do you assume that torture is an effective method for extracting information?

Our own intelligence experts have argued that torture does not work.

You need proof? If I were to torture you and ask you to betray your country and your God, would you do so?
 
Pain does things to some people it will not do to others.
 
Satya said:
Why do you assume that torture is an effective method for extracting information?

Our own intelligence experts have argued that torture does not work.

You need proof? If I were to torture you and ask you to betray your country and your God, would you do so?
Click to expand...

Torture certainly isn't very effective - but if the situation was urgent (like the old "what's the pin-number to defuse the bomb' situation of movies) and other means were not readily available it wouldn't be wrong to attempt to extract the information that way.

As for using torture to reshape people's fundamental values - that would be wrong.
 
Any opinion given when it wasn't asked for is wrong.
 
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. That doesn't mean that you have to agree with them or even aprove of their point of view.

We all make the best decisions available to us based on the truth as we see it. However, we have no way of knowing for sure who's way of thinking is correct. Everyone believes at least a few things that aren't true. We can't avoid it. We aren't built to see reality as it really is. Pretty much everything is a generalisation. Thats just how our brains work. We also tend to pay more attention to things that support our current beliefs and have more of a tendency to dismiss things which suggest we our wrong. Again, thats just how we're wired up.

Respect others right to their own opinion because you can't know for sure if their actually right. At the same time though, we still need to make the best decision based on how we believe things to be. I believe rape and torture etc to be wrong so I think the opinions of people who believe that it isn't shouldn't be given much credit. I don't hate them for it or refute their right to have these opinions but I still think they should be stopped from acting them out.
 
Of course there are wrong opinions! What I think is right, and if you don't agree you are wrong.

You DO know I'm totally kidding, right? :D

I actually think in terms of probabilities. Given this batch of information, X is the most probable explanation.

Some people don't have all the available facts. Some people have the facts, but think irrationally and come to poor conclusions. Sometimes a critical fact is missing, which might change conventinal wisdom if known. Some people are great at connecting the dots when there are very few dots. Some people see dots that don't exist. There are a great many reasons why we disagree, but in most cases, one view is better than the other.

When we say "everyone has a right to an opinion" it means that since we have dignity as human beings, we are allowed to be wrong.
 
It's important to make a distinction here between having an opinion, and acting on an opinion. The former does not matter because it is self-contained, and therefore, of equal value to any self-contained opinions I might have. It only matters if said opinion is acted upon, and thus quantified.
Click to expand...

I agree. Actions are where the rubber meets the road. A person can think and say what they wish. But the moment they act, they enter the domain of the community, and are subject to consequences. If someone wants to believe in purple lunar elephants, that is their business. But the moment they blow away 5 people at the post office "because the elephant told me to" is the moment it becomes everyone's business.
 
No, I don't think there is.

Satya said:
If not then does that mean that pedophiles and serial killers have an equal opinion to your own?
Click to expand...
yes, i think so. having an opinion is separate from behaving/acting in a certain way.

Do all opinions deserve equal respect? Do the opinions of pedophiles and serial killers deserve just as much respect as your own?
Click to expand...

In my opinion, the amount of respect one wants to or should give something is entirely up to the individual. I personally respect all opinions, but not all behaviour.

Should opinions be only based on personal experience?
Click to expand...

I don't understand this question fully, but I suppose? Ideally, as long as one is aware that they are inferring or taking secondary sources as information and the implications of it all, then one could make a logical opinion even if they didn't experience something directly. And one must remember that everyone has their own biases and preconceptions, and their senses and reasoning can fail them, even if they experience something firsthand. In my opinion though, an opinion doesn't have to follow factual reasoning to be a valid opinion, or even be accurate. An opinion is just a "way of thinking" about a certain subject.

If I was raised by a bunch of sociopaths to be a sociopath then would you consider the opinions I have based on that experience to be as valid as your own?
Click to expand...
yes
 
Is there such a thing as a wrong opinion?
If not then does that mean that pedophiles and serial killers have an equal opinion to your own?

If so, then by what process do you determine what opinions are correct and which are wrong?

Do all opinions deserve equal respect? Do the opinions of pedophiles and serial killers deserve just as much respect as your own?

Should opinions be only based on personal experience? If I was raised by a bunch of sociopaths to be a sociopath then would you consider the opinions I have based on that experience to be as valid as your own?
Click to expand...

Personally, I think that opinions are things which can't be labeled as 'wrong' or 'right'. They're neutral. Are cats wrong or right? They're just cats, you know?

What people do based upon their opinions, though, can be wrong or right. An opinion which makes a person hurt someone else is a 'bad' (regrettable) opinion.

I think everyone has a right to their own opinion- yes, even pedophiles and rapists. The two latter should be restricted from acting on their opinions (since those people are sick and can't help themselves), but that doesn't mean that they aren't allowed to think as they will.

I don't judge people by their opinions. I judge them by their actions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top