Is what we call “right” actually truth, or just what most people agree on? > Likes and Comments

In every society, people grow up believing their morals, traditions, and values are natural and correct.
But if we look at a different time in history, or a different culture, we find people just as confident about completely opposite beliefs.
This makes me wonder whether many of the things we defend emotionally are conclusions we reached ourselves, or beliefs we absorbed because we grew up surrounded by them.
A thing often becomes “right” when enough people agree on it, and “wrong” when enough people reject it. Not necessarily because truth changed, but because the majority did.
I explored this idea more deeply while writing my book, Reflection. Vision. Transparency.: A Thought on Human Nature and Society, and I’d genuinely like to hear how others think about this.

Dennis wrote: "Atharv wrote:  "... I’d genuinely like to hear how others think about this."

Couple o' details:

1) No one practices only a single morality.
Like everything else, morality depends on context.
So p..."
This is a very interesting extension of the idea. I hadn’t thought about morality as something we shift between depending on context, and especially the point that a moral framework needs opposition to define itself. That adds a lot of depth to the discussion.

My own understanding of truth began very simply: don’t tell lies.

I was raised in a strict Catholic home, and as a child I accepted the doctrine as truth. In a sense, I believed what I was given because I had no reason — or ability — to question it properly. It was the world I had been born into.

But as I grew older, I began to ask questions, and gradually realised that what people call “truth” is often mixed with power, tradition, fear, and control. I came to feel that much of organised religion had become less about what Jesus actually taught, and more about keeping people obedient.

So yes, as children we often believe what we are told. As adults, I think we have a responsibility to question it.

The same applies to politics. Politicians speak constantly of truth, duty, and public good — but promises are not truth simply because they are spoken loudly enough. Today, perhaps more than ever, we have to ask: who benefits if I believe this?

For me, truth is not what the majority agrees on. It is what remains honest when power, fear, and convenience are stripped away.

Dennis wrote: "Atharv wrote:  "... extension of the idea ..."

Same as you, it was something I had written about,
but I came at it from a more practical direction, in fiction.

Two characters, both military – one..."
It’s fascinating how you explored this through two contrasting characters. Showing morality through fiction is not easy—I’m still learning how to do that well myself.
In my book Reflection. Vision. Transparency.: A Thought on Human Nature and Society, I approach morality more through reflection and real examples rather than story.
What’s really interesting is how we seem to have arrived at similar conclusions through completely different approaches.

James wrote: "My own understanding of truth began very simply: don’t tell lies.

I was raised in a strict Catholic home, and as a child I accepted the doctrine as truth. In a sense, I believed what I was given b..."

I guess that is the right mindset to reach real truth. Truth should never be forced upon through fear or any benefits.
Truth should be objective

Dennis wrote: "Atharv wrote:  "Reflection. Vision. Transparency."

Since light is your metaphor, you might consider stretching it
to refraction, focus, opacity, frequency, wavelength, color,
wave mechanics, tetra..."
Not only in fiction through characters, but also through thought experiments, we can arrive at ideas we might never reach by thinking as ourselves alone. I found myself exploring something similar while writing my book Reflection. Vision. Transparency.: A Thought on Human Nature and Society, where I often used imagined situations to examine human behavior and perspective.

Dennis wrote: "Atharv wrote:  "... I often used imagined situations ..."

Ya, that's how it starts – just a single situation.
But every situation has a context.

If they're interesting, they'll imply related situ..."
I guess that's a thing every one should do. Writing not only helps us document ideas but also gives us a strong ability to think and reason.

Dennis wrote:

"Couple o' details:

1) No one practices only a single morality.
Like everything else, morality depends on context.
So p..."

Couldn't one just argue that a given morality requires one or other things depending on the context? So in that sense it's one morality which proscribes one sort of response to an event in one context, and a different response to the event in a different context.

Dennis wrote: "Atharv wrote:  "... a thing every one should do."

Ya, if they can.  John Cleese says you need at least 90 minutes
when you're sure you won't be disturbed – pretty rare."

I write for two hours a day. While finishing the final edit of my book, Reflection. Vision. Transparency.: A Thought on Human Nature and Society, I wrote six hours daily for a week.

Dennis wrote: "Ian wrote:  "Couldn't one just argue ..."

It would only work for as long as the contexts cooperate.
Eventually, you land in a context that invokes both moralities.
Role conflict.  Your only hope i..."

I'm curious about how you'd further elaborate on this; could you give an example?

Hi, I’m Riya Chatterjee, author of The Realmwalker chronicles. If you are into fantasy world you can definitely check out this one✨

Curse of the Wolf Realm 🐺
A story about going through darkness… and finding the light together.

Faye and her friends face all
fear, secrets, and something that may not be outside… but within.

And still, they stay. They fight. They solve it together.

If you love friendship, loyalty, and mystery… this is for you.

Read here: https://a.co/d/0hCbtzle 🤍

Dennis wrote: "Ian Anderson wrote:  "... an example?"

Latin persona means mask, specifically for ancient theater.
We present different personæ in different domains.  Modern society
is structured to keep those do..."
In simpler words, One acts differentely with his wife and his mother.

Dennis wrote: "Atharv Mishra wrote:  "... A thing often becomes 'right' when ..."

Etymology gives hints to the origins of concepts.

The words proper, property, propriety and proprietary all hint
that the concep..."
Yeah and that is not the case today.
Simply my point that the so called 'right' is just because of the majority.
If you like the idea you can read my book, "REFLECTION. VISION. TRANSPARENCY.", for a even better understanding.

Atharv wrote: "In every society, people grow up believing their morals, traditions, and values are natural and correct.
But if we look at a different time in history, or a different culture, we find people just a..."

Hi Atharv,

I think what we call “right” often changes from person to person, from society to society, and from one period of history to another. What feels natural or moral in one culture may seem completely wrong in another.

That is why I think it is important not to confuse “rightness” with truth. Social truths can change. Personal truths can change. The values of a society can change. But truth, in a deeper sense, feels closer to the universal laws of existence — the laws of nature, life, and being.

When a society calls something “right,” it is often speaking from its own time, fears, needs, habits, and collective consciousness. So what the majority accepts is not always truth; sometimes it is only the shared belief of that period.

Maybe the real search begins when we stop defending what we inherited automatically and start asking whether there is something deeper and more universal behind it.

So for me, the question is not only: “Do most people agree with this?”
But also: “Does this bring us closer to a deeper truth?”

Cagla Meydan wrote:  "... closer to the universal laws of existence — the laws of nature, life, and being ..."

And most of all, the Law of Unintended Consequences.

Truth is never what we intended it to be.

Cagla wrote: "Atharv wrote: "In every society, people grow up believing their morals, traditions, and values are natural and correct.
But if we look at a different time in history, or a different culture, we fin..."

Your question is a right question to ask.