Epistemic Philosophy

"When you always know what is right, where is freedom? No one chooses the wrong."

And what happens when they do? We condemn them of being evil? Arrogant? Mistaken? Where do we draw the line? When someone chooses the wrong or when someone chooses the wrong that he believes to be right?

The world of morality is vast and full of notions that, if you view it as a whole, it is something that has, for a lack of a better word, no resultant significance. The abstractions conceived from great sentience that is the Greek philosophers, paved the way for modern philosophers to theorize their own points, But where there is one positive theory, a negative one rises to bring balance. (the term ‘morality’ is then a general term to classify all ideas under immorality and amorality)

To interject a metaphor, I have gone passed the Event horizon of the black hole which is Morality; losing many assumptions about the simple nature of right and wrong.

I’d only like to begin on one, and only one, example on the ambiguity of morality, but its going to be a long article, so brace yourselves.

What is the general consensus of Right and Wrong?

It is/not a set of rules that we adopt to govern how we lead our lives

It is/not one’s ability to ascertain truth from false

Broadly speaking, these are the two main points of the general definition of moral Right and Wrong that I can think of. If there are any other points that I did not include, please notify via comments.

This has been addressed by many movies concerning good morals, most recently by Christopher Nolan’s new movie The Dark Knight Rises. Its been two months since it came out so I can stop worrying I’d be dealing out spoilers, but I was particularly intrigued on the implications of moral truth and how the movie addresses it. Relax, this is not going to be a review of that movie; I was merely relating to it for what I’m about to write next.

What are the implications of fact, truth, moral right and wrong? half truth? lies or general truth in its own context? Is the abstraction of a pure truth only conceivable for immortals? Does truth have to do with the canonicity of a supreme (or transcendental) being or force? I will begin to explore the aspect of these individual features to the best of my intellectual capability.

“When you are studying any matter, or considering any philosophy, ask yourself only: What are the facts, and what is the truth that the facts bear out.”—Bertrand Russell

In that mindset. I’d like to draw out a non-linear sandbox for scenarios concerning these ideas.

Fact and Truth
Fact is the base understanding of the canonicity of what is; all things that are real. We perceive these facts to be in accordance with reality. A tree is a plant, a bird flies, fish swim, any behaviour that clearly can determine a logical inference from the observer with a substantial amount of certainty. A fact may not always be in accord with truth: a Fact is eternal, the truth is what the facts bear as evidence under logical conclusion of the person. I do not say, however, that a person’s conclusion is truth. Without a base of palpable evidence, these “truths” demote to opinions.

There is no empirical theory that dictates truth because of the causal intricate web of decision. think of right and wrong as 2 intersecting strings, forming a cross. and a third string spiralling out from the centre of the intersect; just like a spider’s web. different points in that web dictates your decision the degree of truth, but not the certainty of it.

I might continue to address the moral of right and wrong... When I feel like it.