My most discussed blog is Right & Wrong. It seems this one generates a lot of consideration as it may go against our conventions about right and wrong and the meaning of right and wrong. When we say right, do we mean the direction? Something good? Principles of freedom or entitlement? These definitions are all correct, but the question is, which one do we mean?
Meaning needs to be clarified so we can ensure we are all talking about the same thing. What I really mean to say about right & wrong is that, to me, we can’t prove right & wrong exist as universal laws like gravity and physics. Interestingly, I’m not sure if I believe universal, human, or God-given rights exist? Whom is to say we have the right to breathe? Sure it is something we do naturally, but where does the right come from?
Now there has been questions as to using human definitions as a basis for our assumptions as they, like humans, are flawed. This is a great thought and issue and something to be wary of. This is why it’s a great idea to not believe everything or assume things and to question everything. Sometimes an argument or thought is beautifully crafted but still flawed due to a faulty assumption.
Part of the issue here is we are dealing with concepts that are hard to define. We have a general understanding and maybe a general definition for these concepts, but they are intangible concepts. In what sense do they exist? What is real? How do you define real? If real is what you can feel, smell, taste and see, then real is simply electrical signals interpreted by your brain. How do you know this is real?