who gets to choose what  'is' right? and what 'is' superior

Anonymous said:<< post removed >>

No; I don't.  I'll not beat anyone over the head with religion, philosophy, or my version of the truth to prove I'm right, or that my way is superior.  I will, however, defend my religion, philosophy, and version of the truth to the death if need be.  

In a holocaust I would be the one harboring fugitives because it would be parallel with my religion, philosophy, and truth, despite what those who believed contrary thought, or how they acted based on their own religion, philosophy, and individual truth.

Anonymous said:<< post removed >>

I’m all fairness, I’m very mob minded. It gets shit done. Also, if it was good enough for the ancients, it’s good enough for me.

That aside, obviously it has its flaws. Philosophy wouldn’t be philosophy without the discussion of the morals and ethics involved.

PS: My lawyer has asked to remind you that if you cut your thumb off due to a philosophical viewpoint, Missy is not liable for blood loss. She’s also skint AF so don’t sue her.

Anonymous said:<< post removed >>

Dialogue is one thing, beating a dead horse when someone obviously isn't going to change their opinion is another.   You just make them more resistant with the application of dogma.  

I've seen it from a religious as well as philosophical standpoint.  Only your actions make a difference, sometimes immediately, sometimes after you've crossed back over.

In the end it won't be your religion or philosophy that matters;  it will be the truth of your actions.

Anonymous said:<< post removed >>

Todski, I'm just going to be honest, I really don't understand what you're saying anymore.  But, it seems like you're attempting to argue with me while convincing me about something at the same time.  I just simply have no idea of what either is.  

I don't attempt to convince anyone of anything.  I live and let live.  If my actions don't speak for my character, words certainly won't.  Hopefully you can agree I can do that?

Was there a starting example cold_fusion or have I completely missed it? I just read the first post as talking about what is right, and the feeling of superiority, which are two distinct things. The first is more about actions and outcomes, while the latter is about people and stances.

Anyway. what is 'right' is more often than not that which works and is efficient, with sometimes connections to morality often based off of this. Generally taken in human cultures across time and the globe that killing is bad because is the quick and easy answer to a problem and tries to keep everyone from killing everyone else. Though more often than not the no kill rule does not extend to outsiders, others, aliens, or anyone not of the group.

The 'right' being the way that works, whilst the 'superior' being a way that improves upon this in some fashion. Whether it is more economic or efficient or moral or more in keeping with the times.

An interesting idea I have about us humans it that we are irrevocably creatures that consume. Find it somewhat hypocritical that vegans and vegetarians will not eat meat but will eat plants, plants that may not have a face but are clearly alive, just that replacing them is rather easier than replacing animals and that animals have the capability to be more unique, at least in appearance. Every single person consumes: think of all the oxygen being drunk/eaten/consumed in order to continue the process of living. Must have missed the memo where all Oxygen gave their consensus to be used; there will be more oxygen but it requires plants to take our carbon dioxide and make more oxygen in return.


Back to the topic in hand, the 'right' is not always the most efficient or best way. Sometimes it is just a way that is somewhat reliable and the way that is already widespread and in effect.

Rat colonies, as studied br animal researchers, partake of a peculiar custom for occupying new territory. Male and female rat couples fight other couples and other rats to the death until one couple is left. They then copulate joyously, rapidly populating the new territory with children,  who then intermate. The new colony lives in a very nurturing brotherly fashion.
If a stray rat enters the colony, the first rat that brushes up against the stranger may fight, and also go into an emotional fight mode. When the excited rat encounters another of his clan, he grabs first, and only lets go when the rat he has grabbed, acts and smells as one of the colony. The friendly rat that got grabbed also in seconds goes into the excited fight state of mind, grabbing anyone else he encounters until the whole colony is up in arms, and when the intruder is found he is torn to shreds gangland style. After this sacrifice the rats can go back to being loving and brotherly. Konrad Lorenz, as an experiment, would take a rat from the colony, keep it separately for a couple weeks, whereupon it would take on a slightly different odour, so when placed back in the colony, it generated the fight response, even though the poor rat himself thought he was right back at home.
Konrad, a lover of animals, pulled the innocent fellow out before he got torn up.

Anonymous said:<< post removed >>


I disagree regarding the existence of superiority.

It to me is but a state of mind sometimes based on reasons like ability to perform certain tasks be it artistic, scientific or physical. And at other times, well we only need to be at any country in the world, where you ask any 'loyal' citizen the question which country is superior or what people are superior? The answer at all those place is the place/country you are standing is THE best place on the planet and the greatest country in the world and thereby the people and their culture best and superior to the rest of the world. I have experienced this personally and observed it all my life in all the countries' print and other media.

Coming back to the state of mind in terms of superiority based one one's abilities and the quality/excellence of those abilities which of course distinguishes one from the others who are not of the same level, yes, in general terms we would term that the one being better at that as having superior ability or of caliber for that matter. Does that make that 'person' superior? and if yes...in what context? the answer to me is specifically in the context/field of that particular task. Is that person a superior human? based particularly on that? obviously no.

If we kept that tag of superiority purely based on ability to perform tasks i.e on expertise like a specialist surgeon, scientist or artist, then we are making the wrong kind of hierarchy in society. yes these experts are excellent at what they do and have superiority in their particular field but nothing more.

Yes there are hierarchies at any organization be it political or of even a family unit where everyone has a rank according to the structure, and that is a necessity the structure which is based on experience and efficiency which we humans have arrived at as part of the evolutionary process of civilization. But that does not make, i.e the holders of any ranks make anyone superior outside of that particular context. yest they hold superiority in terms of ranks but not in terms of their humanity or being. that does not make them a superior human being. A superior worker/artist/rank holder yes. Superior human? no

It is this belief based on the accumulation of knowledge and ability and not least of wealth humans have started to believe that they and their patricular kind are superior 'beings'  which is nothing but ego. This societal ego and the resultant holding of one's self in some sort of esteem and belief of superiority that our history shows us the cause of many a societal ills, and some even to this day we refuse to acknowledge let alone address.

examples: the caste system in the sub-continent which is based on socio-economic rankings. people still kill people in its name. It is a kind of racism though for outsiders(i.e. people outside of sub-continent) these are all people of same color/race.
the Rwandan Genocide- for outsiders again same these two groups of humans look same, of color and ethnicity.
then of course we had the world war Nazism and Fascism.

and even today we read even in the most liberal of print media that it's country's culture is superior to that of some other part of the world. I ask on what basis? just because of the values only you ascribe to? do you(I am asking that media not the peers here on DU) actually 'know' that other regions culture and their values? on what reason are those values cherished by them? and do you know they actually look down on your culture and have to say exactly the same about your culture and values i.e. theirs is 'superior' to yours. And it is in this context lies the origin of my question, who gets to chose what is 'superior'?

and the question prior to that

what is right?
first the definition of right when looked up is this

right
   1.
   morally good, justified, or acceptable.
   "I hope we're doing the right thing"
   synonyms:   just, fair, equitable, good, upright, righteous, virtuous, proper, moral, morally justified, ethical, honorable, honest, principled; More
   lawful, legal
   antonyms:   wrong, unjust
   2.
   true or correct as a fact.
   "I'm not sure I know the right answer"
   synonyms:   correct, accurate, without error, unerring, exact, precise; More

in general terms one would assume 'right" as the 'correct' way of doing things. this based on purely experimental/ result oriented thereby scientific basis.
And we all know there is no 'one' right way of doing any thing, mostly we look for the most efficient and easy and least hurtful way of doing thing when choosing right. The question that this thread is about is the other right, the moral, ethical or as they say honorable way. Which again points to the values one holds.

There isn't a "right" nor "superior".

There is the individualistic perception of what we feel or rationalize that is "right" or "superior." But,  never does it go to the extent of becoming a social tautology through majority agreement or the sciences or etc.  

If it did,  the groundwork of our lives would be far less messy.    

I would have to vehemently disagree that there is no "right" or "superior" as it is quite evident in buildings and architecture; a house with a thatched roof is right as a home but a house with a tiled roof is superior in keeping insulated and being less of a fire risk. Then there is democracy: the original version where each male citizen gets a vote is right, but the modern version where each citizen regardless of job or sexual identity or age (as long as classed as an adult) is superior. Education for those who can afford it is right, but education for all is superior. A VHS is right for storing media on, but a cloud storage device is superior; one reason being the latter is less likely to deteriorate and another is that it is more widely accessible and not tied to a single spot on earth.
In these cases the right way is often a logical way, with the superior way being a universal way that is logical and more inclusive. Highly doubt that most modern people are going to disagree over anti-slavery as being right. Going to say confidently that no one is going to claim a 1960's computer is superior to a modern computer for computing (as in crunching numbers to complete a task, rather than a specific task which might favour the 1960's version by being only compatible).

I wasn't speaking to the practicality of inventions.  Rather,  the social,  moral argument that this thread seems to revolve around.  

Still,  to play around, logic being the blunt tool that it is can be twisted around to make anything sound right or superior to another thing.

Again,  why it boils down to individual perception.

Logic is not individual perception or as easily twisted as a media presentation, it is an achievable universal. It is far from a blunt tool used by blunt boorish barbarians, or simply a case of wordplay. I fail to see how inventions are not a part of social and moral arguments. It is right to work whilst part of society, yet it is superior if working whilst part of society and with a pension for the future. The logic in such a case is that long term work should come with a pension, for a reason of safeguarding personal future and better motivating the workers for another reason.