Is there such a thing as a wrong opinion? | INFJ Forum

Is there such a thing as a wrong opinion?

Satya

C'est la vie
Retired Staff
May 11, 2008
7,278
562
656
MBTI
INXP
If not then does that mean that pedophiles and serial killers have an equal opinion to your own?

If so, then by what process do you determine what opinions are correct and which are wrong?

Do all opinions deserve equal respect? Do the opinions of pedophiles and serial killers deserve just as much respect as your own?

Should opinions be only based on personal experience? If I was raised by a bunch of sociopaths to be a sociopath then would you consider the opinions I have based on that experience to be as valid as your own?
 
Hummmm
Opinions have validity or they do not, but that is totally subjective.

Actions are what can be labeled right or wrong and that decision can either be reached subjectively or objectively or a combination of the two.
 
Hummmm
Opinions have validity or they do not, but that is totally subjective.

That is completely nonsensical. You can't argue that some opinions are valid and then argue that it is completely subjective whether or not they are valid. You are trying to have your cake and eat it too.

Actions are what can be labeled right or wrong and that decision can either be reached subjectively or objectively or a combination of the two.

So basically you never hold anyone accountable for what they believe, only for what they actually do?

What is the objective standard by which you dictate some actions are right and some are wrong?

By chance is your objective standard based on a subjective opinion on who or what can dictate what constitutes right and wrong?
 
Is there such a thing as a wrong opinion?

It depends upon the level of objectivity involved.

1. If an opinion is strictly of an objective measure, then it may be proven wrong. E.g. an opinion that Moon is 100 miles afar. This is an incorrect assumption that can be proven wrong.

2. If an opinion is mostly subjective, however is dependent upon a few objective qualifiers such as experience or exposure, then it may be put on a scale of "more informed" to "less informed". E.g. a movie critic proving an opinion for a film. Clearly he has had more exposure to cinema and therefore his opinion may hold slightly more weight than someone who has never seen a movie before, and therefore would like any sense of novelty.

3. If an opinion is entirely subjective, i.e. there are no second or third persons being affected by your assertions, then it cannot be wrong or more or less informed. E.g. blue is a soothing colour. This is an entirely subjective assertion.

So, I suppose, opinions -- as far as they are subjective and claim to be subjective -- cannot technically be wrong.



If not then does that mean that pedophiles and serial killers have an equal opinion to your own?

Yes.

It's important to make a distinction here between having an opinion, and acting on an opinion. The former does not matter because it is self-contained, and therefore, of equal value to any self-contained opinions I might have. It only matters if said opinion is acted upon, and thus quantified.



If so, then by what process do you determine what opinions are correct and which are wrong?

N/A, see first answer.



Do all opinions deserve equal respect? Do the opinions of pedophiles and serial killers deserve just as much respect as your own?

I'll use examples.

If their opinion is that my 3-year-old daughter is sexy, then I will respect that as long as they do not touch my daughter or come near her, and I will go through lengths to ensure her safety.

If their opinion is that my 3-year-old daughter is their daughter, but it's fine if I raise her, then I will point out that this is wrong because I saw her being born and I have more experience to conclude that she is my daughter.

If their opinion is that my 3-year-old daughter is actually 16, then I can say lol ur wrong.



Should opinions be only based on personal experience? If I was raised by a bunch of sociopaths to be a sociopath then would you consider the opinions I have based on that experience to be as valid as your own?

Yes/no, too vague to answer.
 
That is completely nonsensical. You can't argue that some opinions are valid and then argue that it is completely subjective whether or not they are valid. You are trying to have your cake and eat it too.

So basically you never hold anyone accountable for what they believe, only for what they actually do?

What is the objective standard by which you dictate some actions are right and some are wrong?

By chance is your objective standard based on a subjective opinion on who or what can dictate what constitutes right and wrong?

No, cake has nothing to do with anything. Opinions are subjective--dependent upon personal evaluation. Furthermore, they can be determined by some kind of arbitrary means which may or may not involve logical methods. Even when proved "wrong" some people will cling to their opinions so it doesn't matter if there is objective standards to judge said opinons with.

Yes, you are held accountable for your actions because those are typically your beliefs in action. Someone can say they don't like a certain minority--they can blab to the world that such and such people are this and that--however, the truth of their inner self will show itself thru actions--will they risk their lives to save someone they professed to hate? Will they claim they love all kinds of logic but then choose to follow the dictates of a ruler that tells them to gas people to death? Yes, you are more accountable for what you do than what you say.

Some objective standards for actions that come to mind easily are laws. To a lesser extent, within certain cultural groups, social norms can be strictly enforced in such a manner as to be akin to "unspoken" laws.

The objective standards are based upon subjective standards but reinforced by the social contract. Man by his very nature is bound by his subjective reasoning and logic. Get more than 2 people together and all bets are off as to the definition of right and wrong. We usually settle for "we come to a common understanding" that "generally speaking" this or this is considered "wrong"
 
  • Like
Reactions: Radiantshadow
Is there such a thing as a wrong opinion?

It depends upon the level of objectivity involved.

1. If an opinion is strictly of an objective measure, then it may be proven wrong. E.g. an opinion that Moon is 100 miles afar. This is an incorrect assumption that can be proven wrong.

2. If an opinion is mostly subjective, however is dependent upon a few objective qualifiers such as experience or exposure, then it may be put on a scale of "more informed" to "less informed". E.g. a movie critic proving an opinion for a film. Clearly he has had more exposure to cinema and therefore his opinion may hold slightly more weight than someone who has never seen a movie before, and therefore would like any sense of novelty.

3. If an opinion is entirely subjective, i.e. there are no second or third persons being affected by your assertions, then it cannot be wrong or more or less informed. E.g. blue is a soothing colour. This is an entirely subjective assertion.

So, I suppose, opinions -- as far as they are subjective and claim to be subjective -- cannot technically be wrong.



If not then does that mean that pedophiles and serial killers have an equal opinion to your own?

Yes.

It's important to make a distinction here between having an opinion, and acting on an opinion. The former does not matter because it is self-contained, and therefore, of equal value to any self-contained opinions I might have. It only matters if said opinion is acted upon, and thus quantified.



If so, then by what process do you determine what opinions are correct and which are wrong?

N/A, see first answer.



Do all opinions deserve equal respect? Do the opinions of pedophiles and serial killers deserve just as much respect as your own?

I'll use examples.

If their opinion is that my 3-year-old daughter is sexy, then I will respect that as long as they do not touch my daughter or come near her, and I will go through lengths to ensure her safety.

If their opinion is that my 3-year-old daughter is their daughter, but it's fine if I raise her, then I will point out that this is wrong because I saw her being born and I have more experience to conclude that she is my daughter.

If their opinion is that my 3-year-old daughter is actually 16, then I can say lol ur wrong.



Should opinions be only based on personal experience? If I was raised by a bunch of sociopaths to be a sociopath then would you consider the opinions I have based on that experience to be as valid as your own?

Yes/no, too vague to answer.

Very interesting. The level of subjectivity of an opinion influences the degree to which the concepts of right and wrong can be applied to it?

It would seem then that the danger is when people apply their entirely subjective opinions in an objective manner. In fact, all morality could probably be described in that way.

For example, if I have the opinion that a God named Toto exists and he demands the blood of virgins, then that is entirely subjective. You could not argue that my opinion in that matter was right or wrong because you cannot prove that such a God does not exist.

Furthermore, you could not argue that it is wrong for me to go out and kill virgins, since within my subjective opinion that is the moral thing to do. Your own particular moral view that it is wrong to kill virgins is based entirely upon your subjective opinion. As such, your morality does not apply to me and my perception of right and wrong would likely vastly differ from your own.

As such, how can you dictate any human conduct as being right or wrong? Is morality inherently relative since it is generally based on entirely subjective opinions that cannot be proven wrong?
 
Get more than 2 people together and all bets are off as to the definition of right and wrong. We usually settle for "we come to a common understanding" that "generally speaking" this or this is considered "wrong"

So you believe morality, in the sense of what constitutes right or wrong human conduct, is simply a consensus at the time?

No wonder war is still such an attractive option. It is one of the only objective ways to bring about a consensus by dwindling the numbers of those who disagree with your subjective opinions.
 
So you believe morality, in the sense of what constitutes right or wrong human conduct, is simply a consensus at the time?

No wonder war is still such an attractive option. It is one of the only objective ways to bring about a consensus by dwindling the numbers of those who disagree with your subjective opinions.

LOL Of course it is silly. At one time people believed that women were chattel, property of their father and then their husband. At one time people believed that white and black people should be segregated. At one time white people believed that black people were sub-human and should be owned as slaves. Come on guy, don't make me sneer. And the proper phrase is "No wonder war is still such an attractive option FOR SOME."
 
Last edited:
LOL Of course it is silly. At one time people believed that women were chattel, property of their father and then their husband. At one time people believed that white and black people should be segregated. At one time white people believed that black people were sub-human and should be owned as slaves. Come on guy, don't make me sneer. And the proper phrase is "No wonder war is still such an attractive options FOR SOME."

Given how you and Arsal have responded, logically speaking morality could be summed up by a simple formula with only two variables.

Those variables are the value that people percieve an action having and the ability to develop a consensus to that value.

As such, war would most definitely be an attractive option to anyone if the perceived value is high enough to obtain their agreement to it.

For example, a person may be a pacifist until they realize that their entire family and group of friends are going to be eradicated. At that point, the value of going to war seems considerably more moral.
 
how can you dictate any human conduct as being right or wrong? Is morality inherently relative since it is generally based on entirely subjective opinions that cannot be proven wrong?

Survival is the meme of existence, when the gain does not exceed the loss of life (usually a hard thing to determine, ultimately, if one speaks of war. Repercussions afterwards can be fierce) then I'd say it is safe to assume the actions taken, and the morality validated, are wrong and need re-aligning. A vital part of moral development is learning to mediate one's actions in the name of one's morality to preserve beliefs without forfeiting peace (awkwardly worded, I apologize). To use a classic example, a destitute father whose child is starving steals a loaf of bread and some water from a store. The store owner is obligated to prosecute unless thievery becomes accepted and he runs out of livelihood, causing his environment to be without needed goods. The father is obligated as a parent to protect his child. Who is more "right"? The child's life probably doesn't matter to the owner, but his goods do; the life matters to the father, but prosecution doesn't (as much). If, instead of jailing the father and forsaking a child's life, the store owner demands compensation in the form of labor or advertizing his goods, everyone wins. Mediation. (Hoping this isn't too obvious to whomever reads this)

Morality is a means toward common survival. Opinions are subjective, how one acts on them is what matters.
 
Given how you and Arsal have responded, logically speaking morality could be summed up by a simple formula with only two variables.

Those variables are the value that people percieve an action having and the ability to develop a consensus to that value.

As such, war would most definitely be an attractive option to anyone if the perceived value is high enough to obtain their agreement to it.

For example, a person may be a pacifist until they realize that their entire family and group of friends are going to be eradicated. At that point, the value of going to war seems considerably more moral.

Weeeellll.
"The value one's beliefs have in directing one's actual actions" is more accurate. Actions are usually the concrete example of one's inner self and a reflection of one's true beliefs. We are capable of telling ourselves the most outrageous lies and prattle on about how we believe this or that.

As far as garnering popular consensus, that only applies to the so-called "objective" measures used by society to determine right and wrong. Morality can be determined on an individual basis as well as a societial basis. We tend to judge our individual morality against the societal scale to determine how "normal" we are in relation to "everyone else". Some people are swayed by the socitial scale to act in ways against their own personal morality.

One is not true pacifist if they are willing to go to war regardless of the so-called reason(s). Hence, they lied to themselves all along and are undeserving of the title pacifist. Again the proper statement would be "the value the individual places upon their loved ones makes the decision to fight and kill a moral choice to them." The value is on the belief, that their loved ones deserve to be protected--not on the action, which is war. War does not hold value, the loved ones hold the value.
 
A wrong opinion would be to say that [MENTION=442]arbygil[/MENTION] isnt incredibly attractive.
 
  • Like
Reactions: arbygil
We can establish grounds for preferring some value judgments to others, so they could be wrong from the perspective of the basis that we judge them on. Simply: yes, I think so.

A commonly used basis is suffering. Another is freedom. The real question is determining what we value in general, and the rest is easy.
 
Is this about morality or opinions? Are there those that think or feel morality is an opinion? Are there those that feel or think otherwise?

I was told decades ago, "Feelings are neither right nor wrong: they are feelings." I do not know after all these years if I agree with that completely, but I do understand what I feel the person meant by saying it. Don't rightly know if I could substitute "opinions" for "feelings" in that statement, but I will ponder it a bit. In its full meanings I would say there are wrong opinions. In a partial meaning using "a belief not based on certainty but on what seems true or probable", I would guess it possible for a belief to be wrong but right to the individual, just as I would guess it possible to be right.

They say everyone has an opinion(could have said that differently). Different people judge things differently with different levels of judgment. Some folk are better at judging things than others, but some people that may lack that ability may still judge things properly here and there.

Dragon, thanks for bringing judging into the picture. Values may or may not play a big role in opinions. Some folk give opinions without giving it much thought whatsoever, giving heed to personal preferences that could be driven by greed on one person's behalf while being driven by love on the other's.
 
Last edited:
Hence, they lied to themselves all along and are undeserving of the title pacifist. Again the proper statement would be "the value the individual places upon their loved ones makes the decision to fight and kill a moral choice to them." The value is on the belief, that their loved ones deserve to be protected--not on the action, which is war. War does not hold value, the loved ones hold the value.

Interesting. While it is the action you judge in the context of right and wrong, it is to the belief or opinion that you ascribe value?

That would lead me to believe that Radiant Shadow is correct, and morality is simply a survival mechanism. As you put it, a scale by which to measure our behavior within the social context.

If our entirely subjective opinions cannot be proven right or wrong, then why should they hold value to us?
 
Last edited:
Opinion and preference are being confused.

Opinions seem to imply three things:
Firstly that some fact is not immediately, or openly evident; or that a fact has not been conclusively established. (2 squared is 4 is not an opinion, but is a fact; whereas, the exact origin of our Moon is subject to various theoretical opinions).
Secondly that any statements given as opinions are judgements of evidence, even if it merely be intuitive, suggesting what is mostly likely to be a fact. (Perhaps statistically, perhaps intuitively, perhaps from experience).
Thirdly, opinions, while influenced by subjective influences, are concerned with intellectual objects - that is to say opinions are properly objective (even if they be incorrect - they are concerned with things which are external to the subjective psyche of the one giving the opinion).

Preference, on the other hand is a statement of subjective inclination/appeal/etc. given by the subject of those sentiments.



Most contemporary discussion of morality doesn't seem to be an offering and evalution of opinions, but rather an attempt to account for varying preferences. That is to say, that contemporary discussion on morals seems to assume that preference is the basis for morality, instead of an objective judgement of what is good for people and society, even if it be contrary to their preferences.
 
For example, if I have the opinion that a God named Toto exists and he demands the blood of virgins, then that is entirely subjective. You could not argue that my opinion in that matter was right or wrong because you cannot prove that such a God does not exist.

Furthermore, you could not argue that it is wrong for me to go out and kill virgins, since within my subjective opinion that is the moral thing to do. Your own particular moral view that it is wrong to kill virgins is based entirely upon your subjective opinion. As such, your morality does not apply to me and my perception of right and wrong would likely vastly differ from your own.

As such, how can you dictate any human conduct as being right or wrong? Is morality inherently relative since it is generally based on entirely subjective opinions that cannot be proven wrong?

I don't believe morality is subjective, morality is an evolutionary concept. The goal is to survive as a species, and in order to do so, we need a common language through which we can communicate, harmonize and survive as a group. Anything that threatens to disrupt this harmony and order is immoral, e.g. murder, rape, and other things. It may be relative to different points in time because culture evolves much as species do, but I don't believe it is relativistic.

In fact, I think the "subjectivity" derives from the size of the group in question. The smaller the group, the more subjective the belief is and less likely it is to survive. A group containing one person and safe-guarding rights of only one person is selfish philosophy that is harmful to society in the long term and is naturally pruned out. A group containing sufficiently large number of people survives within its region, but becomes candidate for competition with other groups in other regions.

If only we can include everyone within the group, and consider humanity as one, rather than many small tribes that need to conquer one another to be successful, it becomes significantly easier to objectify morality.
 
If our entirely subjective opinions cannot be proven right or wrong, then why should they hold value to us?

Because most people think their "subjective opinions" are objective reality and behave accordingly. Introspectively questioning one's opinions is rare.
 
  • Like
Reactions: arbygil
Most contemporary discussion of morality doesn't seem to be an offering and evalution of opinions, but rather an attempt to account for varying preferences. That is to say, that contemporary discussion on morals seems to assume that preference is the basis for morality, instead of an objective judgement of what is good for people and society, even if it be contrary to their preferences.

How does one form an "objective judgement of what is good for people and society" when the standard for that judgement is based entirely upon a subjective opinion?
 
I don't believe morality is subjective, morality is an evolutionary concept. The goal is to survive as a species, and in order to do so, we need a common language through which we can communicate, harmonize and survive as a group. Anything that threatens to disrupt this harmony and order is immoral, e.g. murder, rape, and other things. It may be relative to different points in time because culture evolves much as species do, but I don't believe it is relativistic.

Interesting. Once you assume anything is associated with language then the possibility that it is biologically hardwired into us becomes a possibility. Of course, the other side of that is that our perception of morality changes considerably based on how we feel in our day to day lives.

In fact, I think the "subjectivity" derives from the size of the group in question. The smaller the group, the more subjective the belief is and less likely it is to survive. A group containing one person and safe-guarding rights of only one person is selfish philosophy that is harmful to society in the long term and is naturally pruned out. A group containing sufficiently large number of people survives within its region, but becomes candidate for competition with other groups in other regions.

That seems particularly evident with the debate of nationalism versus multiculturalism that is occurring right now in Europe as a result of the Norway shootings. So shared morality is a key, if not the key, component of a group's identity?

If only we can include everyone within the group, and consider humanity as one, rather than many small tribes that need to conquer one another to be successful, it becomes significantly easier to objectify morality.

Nah, even within the most similar minded groups people will find differences. Thankfully so since absolute conformity is just as terrifying as discord between groups.