The Question!!

Should one bother others for "right" ??

A bit vague. Care to elaborate?

I know that Larry and sorry about being vague but I had no choice in that matter. I would not be able to convey it any clearer if I talked about a specific "RIGHT" here. People always think of relative or conditional "RIGHT" in appose to definite and unconditional ones. For example the statement "killing is not "RIGHT"" contains a contradiction because if you kill for defending yourself or innocents from a mortal danger, killing is not wrong, it is "RIGHT". So, according to simple logic there is contradiction here, but the contradiction is referred to the concept of killing not the one of "RIGHT": For even though killing here is both right and wrong together, our actions into whether we kill or not to kill, must always remain "RIGHT. So, even if killing contains contradiction within itself, the personal or universal position of "RIGHT" in us, always maintains as definite and unconditional as it could get, because in both cases (not killing or killing someone for right reason) "RIGHT"-HOOD remains definite and intact. In this light, that "RIGHT-HOOD" within itself is always unconditional.
Now Larry I am asking: if knowing that we are "RIGHT", the unconditional "RIGHT", allows us to bother others.

An example::
My niece lost one of her eyes due to cancer under the age of 12 month. So, living with my sister and mother for long time, every time I came to the living room I noticed my niece was colouring her blank drawing books in the corner of the room that had very low light. So, few times I told her to stop doing that and use proper light for her reading and drawing activities, but she kept on doing the same thing. Then, I started to get a little annoying by bugging her, by reminding her constantly. Then even she loves me so much, she started to get annoyed expressing that by saying, "leave me alone" and "why are you bothering me all the times." Though due to my knowledge about this matters I knew the only way to get to her, or in general against a bad habit, is by applying unbending persistence.
After a while my mom and sister started to intervene, inquiring: why was I bugging the kid? I explained to them, but it took a little hard work for them to accept, and even after, whenever it came to shove, they still came to defend the frustrated kid, even knowing I was absolutely "RIGHT" and was doing that from the position of absolute love and care, because the kid had only one eye and she had to, (we all had to,) protected it no matter what. So I kept on bothering her until she dropped the bad habit, after she felt cold towards me for quite sometimes.

So here my question is::
Does protecting unconditional "RIGHT" gives us the "RIGHT"to bother others??
Is it really "RIGHT"??

"Should one bother others for "right"?? " .
When one is doing right it is okay everything he does. But human mind would mistake this with Machiavellian motto: " The Aim Justifies the Means" Nothing could be more wrong than that. First and the most importantly is that "right" is not "aim". Right when understood as aim, stiffens to human condition and becomes conditional. Right is an intuitional direct access to something natural and certain, epiphany of some kind that there, could not exist any doubt. Also right is always fighting internally in us with the wrong. So we sometimes become confused, and lose the direct access to its understanding.

Ddavidd, I'm not sure if you realized you switched accounts or if you are answering yourself as "Bob."

As Ddavidd, you are questioning the right to impose your judgment & values on another even when you are certain it is for the other person's best interest. As "Bob" you answer yourself that it is emphatically okay when you are doing what is right.

For myself I confess it becomes a case-by-case situation. I think you bravely pursued the matter with your niece despite estranging her. I think in that case it was the right thing to do.

First I am not trying to win an argument Larry. I am trying to get the conversation going even via arguing with myself. Lots of thinkers did this before like Hume and Plato .... and so on. Actually I wanted to take an opposite stand against myself to make it more interesting. But in order to do that I had to go to extended lengths to answer myself in detail and it is not possible here if I wish to keep the audience slightly interested.
No deception were intended for everyone knows who I am.

One of the point that you made which is relevant to this conversation is "case-by-case situation." It is so because if even you know what is right yet still you must explain it to others. And even doing that you are still in trouble. Tragedies and heroes are the epical and cultural testament to this. Heroes are those who lose their lives and livelihoods... to fight for right and only in their defeats and annihilations they establish the "right." Even in religions, Jesus was crucified because he was trying to do right and Abraham was right when he broke all the idols.

As BOB I tried to address that the position of right is not clear for every one equally. So you might do something right and others might disagree with you. So you were miss-understanding me thinking : "As "Bob" you answer yourself that it is emphatically okay when you are doing what is right." But I was merely stating that if the right is really "right" then in is undeniable that you are right doing that. but as you said it is " a case-by-case situation" to establish what is "right", And most importantly the way we try to establish it. It could go to extreme either like Josef Stalin or like Nelson Mandela.
Other thing, even if you are gifted by knowing the "right" you always have to protect yourself from the wrong. Wrong is also established through the relativism even in the mind of philosophers and thinkers, never mind the prejudice dogmas.
And yes I am conflicted in this matter and I think it is healthy to try to bring my internal argument via my two characters out.

The rabbit hole here is quite deep, so I only started with the case of killing and the most obvious respond to that that even is not understood by the ten commandment. For it we whole heartedly condemn killing and stilling. (Which was right then because the average Joes and Janes can not deal with such subtle subject and as soon as you say killing and stealing could also be right or even prostitution ( the case of "Fantine" in Victor Hugo's "Les Misérables") they might get encourage to do it, or get mad why you talk blasphemy. So the religions had to put a secure barriers against these wrongs, but as a human being and thinker As "Hume" insists: We must investigate beyond the conventional morality. It is so hard and establish ideas are going to get uncomfortable.

I thought I should give it a try here against my better judgments.

No, I knew you were not being deceitful. Everyone understands you have the two accounts. I just wasn't sure if you realized you had made the switch.

Glad to hear that Larry.

Another thing to say::
There are contrast in every subject that seem unconditional and definite but not in "right". Things like good and bad, death and life , night and day...., but not right and wrong. Thing do not switch between them like they do in others. Right is always right we know it somehow, (must know it a priori) before the empirical experience of it, The only empirical experience of it is that we do not recognize its present in us before an empirical experience.
Right is always right. "Thou shalt not kill!" is not right. Thou shalt not kill innocents, or Thou shalt not kill unless thou defends thyelf against whom come to kill thee or kill innocents, is.
So, then to kill is right in different circumstances. So as stealing in Robin Hood cases. The 10 commandment therefore is fallacious. There is only one true commandment and that is::
" Thou shalt not commit un-right"
Commandments are written for kindergarten seekers of spirituality. 10 commandments undermine the human-being ability think like Gods, so they just try to make the best of what it is by trying to put savages in queues.

I like your "Thou shalt not do un-right."

However, there are times when Right is a matter of weighing the greater good vs the lesser evil.

In terms of an ancient question, do the needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many or do the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few?

Even seeming tautological statements that appear straightforward are subject to self-agonizing questioning. Take the Hippocratic Oath: “First do no harm.”

Do you save the unborn child at the sacrifice of the mother or do you save the mother by aborting the unborn child. (I’m positing a life-or-death situation here, not a privacy right of the woman over her body - that’s a whole other issue which I resolve in favor of the mother.)

If you can stop a pandemic in the beginning by destroying one person, is that right? What about a village?

I have no answers. I would defer to real world situations, not theoretical constructions.

To respond to your last question: According to Kantian morality the answer is no. You can not. It is some, I believe ancient saying: One for every one and everyone for one. In the level of consciousness numbers are just distraction. One and collective are already equal.
But saying that is just an opinion. It is an unestablished "right" as you stablished: "I have no answers."

It is nice that you taking the conversation to were I hoped. These facts that you are presenting they are real. As i said it, the concept of right ( is not even a concept, it is perhaps a "form" in platonic point of view.) brings so many complication , specially in the issues of abortion, birth-control, politics, patriotism and religions.

But if we keep the conversation going we are going to get somewhere . We are going to establish some grounds, I have this much faith.

I had great interest in Kant as a younger man, but ultimately inaction is the end result of his morality.

In the example given, Kant would let both mother and child die by his failure to choose.

Haha I seem to be the young version of you, about Emanuel Kant and Carlos Castaneda.
I appreciate that you (like me) do not confine yourself to any particular idea. A guru once told me: never do if you want to go to enlightenment. I know that is true. Opinions and believes as "Bruce Lee" in the "Enter of Dragon" mentioned are only indexes (pointing at the moon) He goes on to his apprentice : Look at the moon, don't let YOUR index distract you from THE moon, (like your ego from the glory.) He meant that all the indexes are pointing at the moon , not only ours. Our viewpoints make the other indexes appear off angle to the moon, as our indexes look in their eyes. As other's believes and faiths do to our visions, and vice versa. This and that ideology are irrelevant, only the "MOON the "truth- right" is relevant. Bible, Quran .... or Marxism are equally wrong when their religion, their ideology, their indexes become more important than the truth. When we worship the books instead of the essence.

To respond about Kant. I think, sometimes inaction is better than action. Like in the chess game sometimes if we could flee our turn and do not move at all we would win the game but unfortunately we must.
So how does someone could choose between the life of his/her child and the life of his/her love of life? Here any decision (unless in obvious cases, if one of them has less chance of survival....) How can it not be cruelty if we sacrifice one love for the other? I rather to flip a coin.
Also the Utilitarian solution that we could sacrifice Less for More, doesn't look appealing to me either. I think this also is the matter of case to case decision.

I am actually wondering if you ever asked your niece why she preferred the low light?

There’s days my eyes hurt with the light and being exposed to the light makes my vision worst, ( I need some vitamin or to eat certain foods that contains that vitamin ). There’s also other ways of inviting people to do something without stressing them out. Stressing can sometimes worsen the problem. You could always invite her to color with you and position where there’s more light. If she refuses, may be sit by her and start a conversation. Try to figure out why she feels comfortable in the low light. Find out what the problem is if possible.

Trying to make a right by force can do more harm than good.

It’s like trying to undo a knot by pulling where you shouldn’t so in the process you tighten it more. All you needed was to pull from a certain point and the knot could have been undone easily. But yeah, sometimes there’s some knots that are more complicated.

Okay Luce, Thanks for the insight.

That's brilliant, Luce. I'm standing awkward that I did not take these points into account. You have a gift for empathy.

A true story:
Once a Persian king Anooshiravan, titled (The Just) insulted his man of knowledge and a personal friend calls Borzooye titled (The Healer). He stopped talking to the king and king did everything to make him come back and talk to him again but Borz... did not utter a word and no matter how the king tried he refused. So, king ordered to throw him in jail and he still kept silent.
The king was frustrated he really was depended on Borz's insight and addicted to the man's wisdom. Suddenly a wise man amongst his ministers advised the king to make Borz to share his cell with a mediocre, and that would do harm to him more than any punishment. And that really worked like a charm. Borz after a night alone with the average Joe, sent a note to the king and said he would brake his strike if the king release him from the cell immediately.

Anyway This concludes our discussion in this subject for me. (that shouldn't take place in such place in the first place) I think this longwinded chapter of my life is finally over. Something suddenly snapped in me. I know now I am released from my discursive self inflected calling. Thanks God!! The lesson is learned: It is impossible to find water in the desert. I am soooo parched and don't belong here.

None who fish
In the tiny stream that drains out into a marsh
Can ever fish up a pearl. (Froogh)

Before I declare my defeat in the discussion board and accept that, assuming I could make a difference, I have to respond to Luce's rhetoric because I know certain people might think I was over powered by her. I was, however by the lack of insight and understanding, after two decades trying to make changes here.

The trouble with reading in dim light is epidemic amongst children and adults due to the parents neglects.
I remember my father were telling me don't do it but it was too hard for me to change the bad habit and he gave up on me after a while because he was a busy man. I was not about letting the same happen to my niece since she has only one eye. The trouble is not as you said it, due to the lack of some vitamins. You always judge all the experiences according to your personal ones. I know you are so obsessed with vitamins due to your health situation but my niece is not you. Her condition is totally different and well noticed by professionals.
I read a study with eye-care professionals awhile ago that children, and some adult (due to irreversible long habit) get use to read in dim light which will affect their eyesights tremendously when they grow older . The argument was THEY DO IT BECAUSE THEY CAN SEE PERFECTLY IN THE THAT LIGHT AND THEY ARE SO IGNORANT ABOUT THE CONSEQUENCES. (as children mostly are.) I also read about dental cares that breaking nuts would damage your teeth in later on of your life and asked the parents to be mindful of that. it is not due to a lack of any vitamins or.... I think people like you and Larry would call parents who discipline their children by insisting on the right thing to do, child abuser. These kinds of mentality is outrages to me. And also excuses people for not undertaking the hard work. Also even though I am deadly against physical punishment. I am firm about discipline living in the mushy mushy world that parents should be only raising children with caresses and kisses.
Some fundamentals of training are similar in children and pets, (dog and cat) . I have seen pets who drag their owner because they have lost the control and even by enforcing harsh punishment they cannot change their pets behaviours. People who do not have the back bones and stamina to be firmed, so they spoil their children or pet, then they have no choice but to resort in harsh punishments or neglection. But if they were firmed from the get go they wouldn't lose the control so desperately. When I walk with my dog he knows he never could push me around; he never pushes the leash when I push back because I have been persistent with him impeccably since the beginning without using excessive force or punishment. it is a little hard work. You should never neglect and be firm all through. You inflect punishment and harshness when you LOSE the control!!
Bad habits when they are stablished are like healed broken bones that were not casted. When the child grow up he has to brake them one by one again when the bones are more firm and ticker, and way more agonizing, to cast agin straightening them.

Also your usage of the word force Luce, was very loose. Every action is force. There are force in any movement. Of corse you have to find the right string to pul the knots open. Do you think I don't know that? I dealt with nots a lot due my sport habits. I think it is your action that would tightens the knot not mine. You can lullaby children to sleep, not out of their bad habits, my friend.
Also extreme measurements are for when we lose control. So, the only option is the hardest one for a truly responsible parents and that is to be firmed and persistence. I know it is so hard for the parents to be mindful and attentive that much, so some use excuses to relieve themselves.

Really, I don't think it's a "win or lose" discussion any more than I think the solution is only one extreme or another.

I do not consider discipline "child abuse" and I don't speak for Luce, but to describe either of us as taking that position simply on the basis of this discussion is mostly a turn-off seeking to stifle further input - so, good news -I quit.

Sorry Larry I did not wish to upset you. But your sudden blunt support of Luce's words that was wrong in so many levels upset me. As you noticed I even refused to respond for I thought everyone would notice how wrong she was until you recanted your understanding and support of my experience and went all for hers flashy one. Also this is so personal to me and I love my niece to the death.
I also due to so many issues with her rhetoric had to go long ways, only to address how fallacious her assumptions were in the environment that so many would jump to praise such "exhibitional" stand , having no idea what is really in stake. Concept like child abuse, bullies and ....are subject to many misinterpretations, judgements and emotional outbursts. I did not want to waste time and energy in such environment.
I also never "seek to stifle further input" I can handle myself in any intelligent conversation and look forward to them.

Sorry again for mentioning your name. I enjoyed your inputs. They were smart and educational.

Edited

Some regards to Luce too.
I have enjoyed my conversations with you in the years. It is not you it is only me . I feel I was supposed to feel empty coming face to face with the hallow of being the Don Quixote all alone, in all those years here, fighting against the windmills of some evil. Even oceans end.

I am also very stressed and exhausted by my mom's situation.
It is not perhaps my duty, as Larry mentioned long time ago, to shed light.
I was not energetically at my best to undertake this topic. My energy was otherwise engaged. Something has broken in me suddenly::
I don't get mad at darkness anymore. From now on I am only going to use my forces whenever they are truly called, not by me :) :). Yes something in me broke but I did not brake I think my cocoons just did

“ Before I declare my defeat in the discussion board and accept that, assuming I could make a difference, I have to respond to Luce's rhetoric because I know certain people might think I was over powered by her.”

- it always confuses me as to why you feel the need to see our conversations as a race or a game? I simply said that I wondered if you ever asked your niece why she prefers the low light?

I gave my reason for why I would prefer low light, but I am aware that everyone is different. She might not have my issue, she might have her own reasons. So I thought that figuring out what her reason was might help determine the best way to approach the situation. Sometimes you need to be firm. Sometimes you don’t. It depends.

Anyways, life is short. I’ll go spend whatever time I have, in a more productive way, rather than arguing.

By the way, it never is about me. (You just haven’t being able to see it).

Bye.

Dear Luce your post was flashy and catchy to superficial eyes, like the one about bullying that mixed up the evidence of raving to make a conclusion that I was a bully. Larry even went and asked if any body ever was bullied should report it to the mod account, in which it was obvious that he meant me. They then, used the permanent suspension button for the first time in the history of this site. In witch trashed my account. My poems from 280 or something suddenly became 400 , for all the poems I ever deleted surfaced again, and the worse all my poems were infested by numerous amount of question marks. and all my quotes were disappeared and were lost forever, after they reinstated my account.
So, when your condescending post came out that implied that I used excessive force against a half blind kid, and Larry again was dazzled with the flashy thought, it reactivated a bad complex, a knot that seemed never going to be opened. But i wasnot the one who pulled it wrong.
I know your post was not as malicious but brought back a bad memory. There is a saying in Persian : One who is bitten by snake would even fear ropes.
But I decided to let it go for I did not want to respond.
And the reason I said people were going to think I was overpowered was because of the Larry's reaction to your post. I thought if I did not answer everyone was going to think I did not have the answer.
But me answering you and get emotional about it was my fault. I lost the control.
My mom is 88 years old. she suffers Alzheimer and in the beginning of this year fell and broke her back. She had surgery in this age and now needs 24 hours care that I and my sister provide that for her. I have to wash her, clean her and walk her, cook and answer her repeated questions on an on because as soon as I finish answering, she forgets and ask the same question for hundred times. She is also in pain and have no motivation to live but our unconditional love and prove that she is not a burden and her existence regardless of all the hard works is precious to us.
Also I was injured in work before so I did not work for a while and after her accident I am not able to go to work so financially I am broken, and that is hard considering my age and state of life. I said these not to get sympathy, I would have never said it if you did not question the integrity of my act. I know I should let go and did not respond to such an emotional subject(for me) but energetically I was so drained.

You also are not fair generalizing like these: "- it always confuses me as to why you feel the need ..." or " You just haven’t being able to see it" assuming the is was a reoccurring event. I always supported you even when you did not seem right or talking about the subject that were not informed about. And love you like a little sister. It was you who could not grasp that: You said bye in the end I know what you mean by that. Our friendship is not worthy to over pass a little conflict.
But not me i never say goodbye to a friend. Anyway I apologize if my emotional respond upset you.

Sorry you are going through very difficult times. When I said bye, it’s only to arguments that get to nowhere. In my opinion, it doesn’t matter if you (in general sense you or me or anyone,) is right or wrong. What matters is solving a problem without causing more harm than good. Peace.

By the way, I know you might think I’m obsessed with vitamins but there is a reason why I mention them.

Look at this:

Abnormal Thiamine-Dependent Processes in Alzheimer’s Disease. Lessons from Diabetes

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3609887/?fbclid=IwAR04qFC_xnAwwr8iAfg2pq6KzbZoDORpao50Vn4yPTXea17s4c6RdtlYRuw

Benfotiamine and Cognitive Decline in Alzheimer’s Disease: Results of a Randomized Placebo-Controlled Phase IIa Clinical Trial

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7880246/

I want to figure out why we end up needing such a high dose of thiamine? Actually, pretty high doses of all the vitamins… however, to those reading this, I’m not a doctor, but be careful when taking vitamins or supplements. For every action there is a reaction…

Taking Thiamine will increase the need for electrolytes specially potassium and magnesium. It’s like thiamine puts the potassium in the cells. If there’s deficiency, one can experience symptoms as if potassium deficient even though blood test shows normal levels of potassium. However, it’s good to check blood test levels of electrolytes cause when those are really low… the problems worsen. B12 uses potassium.

Also, it likes biotin, panthothenic acid, ALA, and iodine share the same transport. So… how does or body decide what to transport from the food we eat?

What I’ve been seeing though is that stress is usually what gets us. So reducing stress levels can help.
The need for certain vitamins is going to be different for everyone.

Anyhow not to bored you, I hope God gives you the strength you need to overcome this challenges. I wish you all the best.

:) :)
You have all the rights to be obsessed with vitamins. I love your unbending enthusiasm in medicine. The way you utilize your energy is so interesting for me.