"Right-minded people"

Lapin

Right minded people

Its a term we often hear used in the wake of horrific acts inflicted on others by fellow human beings. I've heard it used following the recent killings in Colorado, last years tragedy in Norway, the 911 attacks and regularly throughout the troubles on our own island to name a few examples.

Often a politican, police chief, clergyman or some other public figure will declare that all right minded people join him in condemning such acts.

And while I whole heartedly agree that all such atrocities should be condemned, I wince a little at their use of the term right minded.

It presupposes that those in his audience are in natural agreement on all matters of judgement as everyone considers themselves to be right minded. This dangerously assumes that all right minded people are also like minded.

Those responsible for some of the worst atrocities in human history had little doubt in their minds that their deeds were right and justifiable.

Clearly there is a line between those who condone such acts and those who condemn them, yet on each side of that line both sets of people belive themselves to be right minded. The phrase 'one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter' springs to mind here.

I would argue that if you got a group of people all aiming for a common goal to peel away at each other's differences and disagreements, each one would eventually conclude that none of the others are as right minded as they are themselves, despite all striving for the same objective as a group.

Therefore, I suggest the term Right minded people is an empty phrase, and best avoided.

im invisible

i'm more right minded than not

The Corinthian

Terms like right-minded people or conventional wisdom are really a form of shorthand to denote presumptions or axioms in a discussion that are accepted (by popular consensus) as already proven.

This is not always a bad thing, because unless we use such terms, we would have to essentially prove even the most blindingly obvious and accepted things in life, such as 'killing people for sport is bad' - certainly one can logically demonstrate this, but it can lead to a discussion becoming unwieldy and ultimately never getting to a conclusion.

The danger with such shorthands is when we use them to put forward concepts that in reality are false or where consensus is missing; such as 'the World is flat', 'God exists / does not exist' or 'there are no redeeming qualities to Communism / Capitalism / Fascism / Democracy / Monarchy'. This can lead to abuse and censorship as it forces the discussion to be discussed in the framework where disputed or false axioms can be drawn from in argument and lead it to a false conclusion.

In short, the use of such phrases is useful, if not essential, to many discussions, however it should also be challenged on a regular basis, as required.