The Right to Be Wrong

The riots at the capitol a few weeks ago got me thinking about a central tenet of American society - the right to be wrong, and exactly how far that right extends. The right itself must exist, because if there was one correct way of thinking it would have complete dominance over the nation. Instead, we can observe not only a deep divide politically, but divisions within the parties own ideologies. This wide spectrum of beliefs shows that we as a society have not found the answers we're looking for. Those answers would be so obvious that they'd take a nation by storm and squash out all other ways of thinking, and though people often like to believe they alone have the answers to solving the country's problems, they know next to nothing on the subject, and often fail to grasp the complexity of the problems themselves.

So if there is no "right" that we know of, how can we define a wrong? For the purposes of this essay, wrong will simply mean those who do not follow the facts, and instead sink into their own victim mentalities and ideologies. Also for the purposes of this post, we'll be looking at those who violently raided the capitol, though the lessons can be applied to any ideologically possessed group on either side of the political spectrum.

The right to be wrong extends only so far as to be on the precipice of violence, but it must never cross that threshold. I would also add that disrupting the lives of those who have nothing to do with your cause is just rude - like blocking off roads so people can't get to work. However, that only constrains the right to be wrong physically - what about morally?

In a climate of relativism, where right and wrong themselves are in question, one can't define how far the right to be wrong extends. In the perceptions of those who stormed the capital, they were right in the purest and most "patriotic" sense. Given the information they were dealing with, it's not surprising to see the result. Now of course, there are further complexities than just misinformation; the people who stormed the capital were possessed by their ideology - a complex psychological phenomenon I've discussed in the past. For now, let's forgo the deep psychology and return to the moral question.

And the only way to answer said question is to return to Objectivism, without which there are no boundaries to what can be right. I mean, who defines misinformation, relatively speaking? It's technically "right", in the frame of reference of those who are victimized by it, but that doesn't sit well with me. So objectively, how can we morally define the right to be wrong?

In a broad, loosely objective sense, the right to be wrong is bounded by facts. Scientific, mathematical, or statistical facts. Objective reality. If I were to go up to an orange and call it an apple, I'd be swiftly corrected. But what if I went my whole life being taught that it was an apple? What if every mentor, every news outlet, and every friend in my life called it an apple? Well, I'd still be wrong. In an objective world, even one as loose as I'm describing, there are rules. And they do not bend to misinformation.

A moot point, yet one which I feel needs mentioning, is what even qualifies someone to have an opinion? That's a post for another time, but it's a hell of a lot more than what most people think, but people seem to not care about the validity of their opinions before speaking, or acting, these days.

So if science, math, and statistics can define what is right, then where does that leave faith? Faith, that bittersweet fruit that Kant cherished and Kierkegaard idolized. I would say that, in a world loosely defined by objective reality, faith fills in the cracks. Having faith in something seems to be a necessity in human life, and I don't dispute that. But when faith clearly contradicts known fact... we need look no further than January 6th, 2021.

So then the answer to the original question: how far does the right to be wrong extend, can be answered. Physically, it extends only so far as to be non-intrusive to those who have nothing to do for or against your cause, and only so far as to be non-violent towards those who you are directly opposing. Morally, the right to be wrong is bounded by the facts, relative perceptions aside. Those who clearly oppose the facts themselves can be seen as being morally "wrong", and those who at least agree on the raw facts can be seen as "right". Thereafter, you start getting into the wooly world of frames of reference and perceptions.

What happened on January 6th, 2021 was the culmination of years, perhaps decades, of a festering rot in the psyche of the American population, and it was not just constrained to one party, or one set of beliefs. This may have been the most direct, and violent, threat to the stability of the democracy, but it certainly wasn't the first, and it won't be the last. Part of me feels a little indifferent writing this post - no one who needs to take a lesson from it will learn, after all. I suppose the last thing I'll say is that it could be true that the right to be wrong comes with the responsibility of being willing to be corrected. Unfortunately, we are abusing the right without realizing the harsh responsibility in this day and age.And the only way to answer said question is to return to Objectivism, without which there are no boundaries to what can be right. I mean, who defines misinformation, relatively speaking? It's technically "right", in the frame of reference of those who are victimized by it, but that doesn't sit well with me. So objectively, how can we morally define the right to be wrong?

In a broad, loosely objective sense, the right to be wrong is bounded by facts. Scientific, mathematical, or statistical facts. Objective reality. If I were to go up to an orange and call it an apple, I'd be swiftly corrected. But what if I went my whole life being taught that it was an apple? What if every mentor, every news outlet, and every friend in my life called it an apple? Well, I'd still be wrong. In an objective world, even one as loose as I'm describing, there are rules. And they do not bend to misinformation.

A moot point, yet one which I feel needs mentioning, is what even qualifies someone to have an opinion? That's a post for another time, but it's a hell of a lot more than what most people think, but people seem to not care about the validity of their opinions before speaking, or acting, these days.

So if science, math, and statistics can define what is right, then where does that leave faith? Faith, that bittersweet fruit that Kant cherished and Kierkegaard idolized. I would say that, in a world loosely defined by objective reality, faith fills in the cracks. Having faith in something seems to be a necessity in human life, and I don't dispute that. But when faith clearly contradicts known fact... we need look no further than January 6th, 2021.

So then the answer to the original question: how far does the right to be wrong extend, can be answered. Physically, it extends only so far as to be non-intrusive to those who have nothing to do for or against your cause, and only so far as to be non-violent towards those who you are directly opposing. Morally, the right to be wrong is bounded by the facts, relative perceptions aside. Those who clearly oppose the facts themselves can be seen as being morally "wrong", and those who at least agree on the raw facts can be seen as "right". Thereafter, you start getting into the wooly world of frames of reference and perceptions.

What happened on January 6th, 2021 was the culmination of years, perhaps decades, of a festering rot in the psyche of the American population, and it was not just constrained to one party, or one set of beliefs. This may have been the most direct, and violent, threat to the stability of the democracy, but it certainly wasn't the first, and it won't be the last. Part of me feels a little indifferent writing this post - no one who needs to take a lesson from it will learn, after all. I suppose the last thing I'll say is that it could be true that the right to be wrong comes with the responsibility of being willing to be corrected. Unfortunately, we are abusing the right without realizing the harsh responsibility in this day and age.