Saturday, November 6, 2010

Rule Britannia is Out-of-Bounds

Focus on soldiers fighting in the dance hall.

Who’s in the right? Is it possible to be in the right and still be wrong? I think it is.
Should I provide justification for that thought? If I do, am I not-wrong? That’s how it worked in English at school and how it seems to work for philosophy; as long as the justification is sound, that is.

I would propose a thought experiment, but the one I designed is perhaps to close to real-life for you, dear Reader, to think about objectively. Because of this, my justification lies in the realm of the Arm-Chair. Since I am sitting on a bus at the moment and not in an arm-chair, this may be slightly fuzzy.
I am certain that it is possible for everyone to find situations wherein a rational agent has clearly been in the right, yet was still wrong in some manner.
In this context, I assume “in the right” to mean that the particular agent is morally justified in their actions, especially in relation to the agent who is “in the wrong.” And by “wrong” I mean have made actions that are not morally justifiable.


Post a Comment