Wrong

[narcimund 0]

I can think of four meanings of the word "wrong". Does everyone know the difference?

1) factually incorrect
"He was wrong when he said two plus two equals five."

2) morally reprehensible
"You should not lie. That's wrong."

3) legally impermissable
"You must not murder. That's wrong."

4) emotionally disquieting
"What gay people (or straight people or polygamists or sadomasochists) do in the bedroom is wrong. It makes me sick."

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[Muenkel 0]

Yeah.

You described each of the definitions.

Why do you bring this up?

Chris

_________________________________________
Chris

[narcimund 0]

Quote

Why do you bring this up?

There have been a lot of threads lately where people carelessly throw around the word "wrong". I figured if people are going to use explosive words they should think carefully about what they're doing with them.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[wildblue 7]

In keeping with ernokaikkonen's thread...

Your search for wrong returned 5695 results

Wow... so we like being right more than we like talking about sex! That's just wrong*!




*See #4 above

it's like incest - you're substituting convenience for quality

[ernokaikkonen 0]

The first thing I thought was that your definitions 2-4 were more or less the same thing. Especially 2 and 4. I'm not sure the word "wrong" is actually very often used in a strictly legal context. "Legal" of course varies from one country to another, and "morally wrong" and "emotionally disquieting" seem to go hand in hand.

Quote

wrong was found in the Cambridge International Dictionary of English at the entries listed below.

wrong (NOT CORRECT)
wrong (NOT SUITABLE)
wrong (IMMORAL)
wrong (NOT WORKING)

Yes, I'd use the OED but their web-service costs money... ;P

[freeflir29 0]

5) It's wrong to have a thread that doesn't mention boobies.

[ladyskydiver 0]

Looks like you took care of that one. LOL

Life is short! Break the rules! Forgive quickly! Kiss slowly! Love truly, Laugh uncontrollably. And never regret anything that made you smile.

[freeflir29 0]

Quote

Looks like you took care of that one

What will you guys do without me after the 2nd?

[narcimund 0]

Quote

2-4 were more or less the same thing.

I agree they're related, though people will vary in their ability to distinguish between them.

Quote

I'm not sure the word "wrong" is actually very often used in a strictly legal context.

Of course you're right. It's used occasionally that way, but not often.

Quote

"morally wrong" and "emotionally disquieting" seem to go hand in hand.

That's a cynical view


Also, your inclusion of "not suitable" is a valuable contribution. I'd like to add that as #5.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[freeflir29 0]

Quote

I'd like to add that as #5

I see how it is...MY #5 just wasn't good enough!!!

[billvon 3,107]

>"morally wrong" and "emotionally disquieting" seem to go hand in
> hand.

>That's a cynical view

But I think that's how most people form moral judgements. Few people, I think, have a hard-and-fast list of morals they consult - something just bothers them (i.e. they see a cow being killed, and they don't like to see animals being killed) and they therefore think it's vaguely wrong. As that might not stop them from eating meat, it's hard to claim that they have made a moral decision, but it still bothers them, and they deal with it by shying away from the topic.

[freeflir29 0]

Quote

I think, have a hard-and-fast list of morals they consult

Some others have lists...they are just very short....

[ernokaikkonen 0]

>But I think that's how most people form moral judgements.

Is there another way? The concepts of "right" and "wrong" are just something an individual feels right and wrong. Of course there may be some help from religious writings and upbringing, but where do right and wrong come from if not from the judgement of individual people?

>Few people, I think, have a hard-and-fast list of morals they consult

Is that good or bad? Would you rather follow a _list_ of rights and wrongs, or do what you feel is right?

[billvon 3,107]

>>But I think that's how most people form moral judgements.

>Is there another way?

Of course. Deciding on your morals and sticking to them even when something makes you uncomfortable. People who smoke really bother me, but I know intellectually that it's their decision. As long as they don't smoke near me (which has, on occasion, made me physically sick) then I don't form judgements against them based solely on their smoking - even though I think it's foolish.

Makeup? Big hair? Same thing. I think it's silly, and I often don't get along with such people, but that doesn't mean they are any better or worse than me.

>Is that good or bad? Would you rather follow a _list_ of rights and
> wrongs, or do what you feel is right?

For me, they are the same thing. There are a lot of issues that deserve some pretty careful consideration; sometimes my gut reaction to something is negative even though accepting that something is the right thing to do.

To put it another way, I have gut reactions to things based on my upbringing and my life experiences that often are not the same as my views morally. I went to an all-male catholic high school; I saw very few asian and indian people until I got to MIT, where they nearly outnumber the white kids. That made me a little uncomfortable until I got used to it. I would not have wanted to follow my 'gut reaction' on that and avoided asian and indian students, or to treat them any differently than the caucasian students. My morals tell me that's wrong even if it feels uncomfortable at some lower level.

[DZBone 0]

WordNet has 10 senses of the adjective, two noun senses, an adverb and a verb.

_________________________________________________
If you hadn't read this, would it have made a sound?

[ramon 0]

Not suitable is used quite a bit to.

"Dat der wrench is the wrawng wun fer dat bolt"

"Revolution is an abrupt change in the form of misgovernment.", Ambrose Bierce.

[fasterfaller 0]

If the word wrong is so explosive , I'll take a case of them

[narcimund 0]

Quote

Is there another way?

Most certainly. I refer you to 2000 years of ethical philosophy for many attempts at systematic, universal, and necessary ways to explain morally rightness and wrongness. I would start with Socrates/Plato. Then work your way up to Kant, Mill, Hume, Descartes. Then go back and read Plato again.

Actually, just read Plato and skip the rest. That's enough to answer your question.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[ernokaikkonen 0]

Narcimund, Billvon

Thanks for the food for thought. I had never thought about any of this in such depth. I think I'll visit the local library and borrow some of Plato's work.

[narcimund 0]

Enjoy it. Plato writes charming dialogues with an astounding wealth of intellect.

It's a familiar chant of the Christian religious zealots that there are only two moral systems on earth: theirs which is systematic, justified and true vs. atheistic random desires for immediate and personal selfish pleasure.

In diminishing an entire arm of the brightest and most established human thought to mere animal impulse, they're simply belittling their opposition with ignorant lies. Imagine that.

First Class Citizen Twice Over