Rightness of Wrong

Rightness of wrongs - for every right step/act/method there are numerous wrongs, at least in popular perception. While eulogizing democracy we never fail to add the caveat that " rights of minorities " have to be taken special care of, shouldn't we then by the same analogy infer that,being in minority is no measure of being inferior,especially if we adhere to the idea of universal justice. That a "right" act bears sweeter fruit shall be no measure of bias against wrong.


Thomas Alva Edison , after inventing bulbs remarked that he knew 1000 ways of not making a bulb. Why is
The process of not making a bulb relevant over here? Edison could have had very well remarked that he know the golden way to make a bulb, yet he lent considerable relevance to " not making it" . To say that his failures were the pillar stone of his success would be narrowing down an idea to an restricted adage.

Now let's consider the act of learning maths, the process starts with learning formulas , short cuts, however, the journey of learner is of considerable import over here. He battles against, chronic "mistakes", every formula put forth fights against his/her wrongs. All of his wrongs are molded into rights by practicing. A person with wildest imagination will find a wider range of wrongs. But this doesn't imply that his wrongs are the pillar stone of his success in learning maths, rather his brains are molded into an object that's wired to understand maths. Every wrong faced , is an indicator of differentness of thought, and it is this differentness of thought, which is of considerable significance. They indicate the possibility of an opportunity , the hope of a new idea.

an argument, that could be levied against is that, if wrongs would be countenanced or encouraged, it would lead to anarchy. If there are no general guidelines for good moral and right conduct, people would turn into savage beast. That certainly could be an idea of significant importance but it fails to consider that wrongs aren't a set of everything else in world, that the idea of peace and comfort appeals to every civilized being , provided their basic rights are conferred , isn't far fetched. Yet, there could be certainly an attempt to transcend others rights and this is where institutions come into play, insofar as the moral compunctions are concerned , human race favors peace over war.

Under this system thus humans could afford to wallow in their wrongs and thus identify their rights , and it is this that forms the prime importance of wrongs, " one's wrongs only helps him identify his rights" and it is from this that he forms his ideas in society, but if there is a blind acceptance of "rights" and its expediency to everyone then it becomes nothing more than a pretension which sooner rather later gives away it's veil of rightness and then madly chases wrongs.

If instead however, people form their own personal rights, they would lead to a better social structure. However, it has to be noted that even in this process, conflicts are unavoidable , but I will leave them to the care of social choice theorists ,for me, what's of significance is that people should wallow in their wrongs and that's the only hope of an idea that could be novel, accepted through volition rather than through subjugation. Do wrong, you couldn't get more right .