Reply to comment

I agree largely with both Nelly and Nana on the idea that perceptions are only as good as our words. Nana raises a perticularly valid point that the occurence of evolution encompasses perception and therefore we should indeed expect a variety of this in our population, therefore who's to say that any particular perception is by definition defective? What makes one perception right and another wrong when it could just be that our ability to characterize something is limited by our vocabulary.

So, putting that aside lets evaluate this from another perspective then. What if there really is a right and wrong perception? How far can we go and say that someone may not have the ability to process the "right" perception? What about criminals? Is it their upbringing and environment that causes them to commit crimes or can they take up the same argument and say that there is no true correct perception and so who's to say that what they did was wrong? Of course there are some things in this world that are just wrong, and one can not argue that the reason you call it wrong is because you have a different perception of what to classify as wrong. Then there's the question of where to draw this line. When can we say that there IS a difference between right and wrong and when can we say that its purely based on our own personal perception? One could say that this would be the conscience, but since this differs in each individual how do we account for the "correct" conscience like the "correct" perception? I'm in no way attempting to justify the actions of criminals as I do believe that there clearly is a line between right and wrong although I just thought I'd raise some of these questions.