Who is Right?

[Perfection]

Everything is relative there is nothing or no one who can determine absoloute right or wrong.

However, given the commonalities between people, it's often possible to analyze our facts and wants and come up with an agreed conclusion.

 

[silver 2039]

However, given the commonalities between people, it's often possible to analyze our facts and wants and come up with an agreed conclusion.

Perhaps sometimes but I would find that there are many instances where diffrent societies and peoples have diffren moral views.

 

[Perfection]

Perhaps sometimes but I would find that there are many instances where diffrent societies and peoples have diffren moral views.

To an extent this is true, but I think a lot of it is dependant on different approaches to how to fullfill the same moral values. Discussion can reduce these differences.

 

[BCLG100]

normally im right but debates im not involved in there cant be considered a right answer.

 

[Swiss Bezerker]

The anwswer is simple. Which one has more benfits to you than the other? thats the one you should go for.

 

[Abaddon]

Its the Majority who decides who is right. There is no other correct answer.

Hitler would have been "right" if he had won and nazis were a majority, chrisitianisty was "right" to the majority of eaurope early century etc.

 

[Mr. Dictator]

that would be who is viewed as right, sort of the idea that history is written by the victors, but does would that mean that the minority who opposed the genocide would be wrong?

 

[Cu Chulainn]

Coincidence of their opinion with reality.

 

[blackheart]

Its the Majority who decides who is right. There is no other correct answer.

Hitler would have been "right" if he had won and nazis were a majority, chrisitianisty was "right" to the majority of eaurope early century etc.

Then what about the lone voices who speak out against the majority and then are later to be found and agreed with?

 

[AL_DA_GREAT]

you can't argue with logic.

 

[Ayatollah So]

Experience (the gaining of facts), and logic (the processing of facts) can shape our opinion without disrupting the core values

Interesting theory, but I don't think it holds any water. Experience shows that experience does shape people's values. Repeated attempts to identify "core" values that are immune to this process - along with related attempts to flesh out the fact-value dichotomy - have so far failed. The failures are impressive enough to tentatively justify the conclusion that the fact-value dichotomy is unsustainable.

Of course, that's just my opinion

As to the OP question, logic depends on experience for premises. Adding religion to the mix is redundant, in my case: experience IS my religion But (darn, Cu Chulainn beat me to it!) none of these make a proposition right, only the universe which it describes can do that. And any finite amount of experience could potentially be misleading.