I remember watching “Sale of the Century’ on TV during the last century. We all sat around the ‘telly’, desperately trying to beat the buzzer and guess the answer before the contestant.
One day, Tony Barber, the host at the time, asked “What is the name of the body of water that separates England and—”
BZZZZ!!
“Strait of Calais!” proclaimed the man with his finger on the buzzer.
“The English Channel!” we yelled at one another. How could someone make such a dumb mistake?
“Wrong,” says Barber, “The English Channel”
“Not if you live in France,” came the retort. “We call it Strait of Calais”. The adjudicator allowed the answer.
It was my first encounter with the idea that multiple truths can coexist. Neither was wrong; both were right. It was all a matter of perspective.
Perspective is never the whole truth. It's true, but only from your viewpoint. This means we need to listen to others to understand their perspectives and piece together the full truth.
Some prompts:
When have you realised that your perspective was just one among many—or that your perspective was not the full truth, but only part of the truth?
How did that change your thinking or actions?
How do we really listen to one another, rather than just shout over one another?
That depends on who is defining right and wrong. Are there any absolute rights and wrongs? One of the most popular gods going around says you should not kill, but has a kill record of their own in the hundreds of millions (if their claims are to be believed).
So is killing objectively right or wrong, or is it subjective? As in subject to who's doing the killing and why. Do we redefine a wrong (killing) to be right because who did it (their god) and why (it was just)?
I agree there are many different perspectives, but right is right wrong is still wrong.
That depends on who is defining right and wrong. Are there any absolute rights and wrongs? One of the most popular gods going around says you should not kill, but has a kill record of their own in the hundreds of millions (if their claims are to be believed).
So is killing objectively right or wrong, or is it subjective? As in subject to who's doing the killing and why. Do we redefine a wrong (killing) to be right because who did it (their god) and why (it was just)?