PLR: 3 Questions For Philosophical Debate

These 3 questions I made to myself to justify my actions properly.

I wrote them down as questions because not everyone agree with me there is a simple answer.

In my opinion there is a simple answer but difficult to get to the conclusion.

They are easy to remember as the "PLR questions".

P = Promise

L = Logic

R = Right

PROMISE: If you promise to do something but find out later it is wrong, should you keep your promise?

There should be no promise keeping you limited to doing wrong things. If this is the case either the person or institution you give your promise is ignorant or willing to do the wrong thing. People are by default ignorant, which means a society that puts a promise over right or wrong is an willingful ignorant society. For example, if you promise to get an item but discover that the item belonged to another person, you are not obligated to steal it because you did not promise to steal.

My conclusion: No.

LOGIC: If you need acceptance from other people to do or believe anything, does it stop you from using logic and evidence for its actual purposes?

Logic and evidence are the best tools we have to make any decision or create principles. You can not demand everybody to know the same logic or evidence as you. I define a society as "a group of people living under a set of acceptable standards". Keeping your actions limited to what is acceptable is the same as keeping society's standards of what is acceptable, which can not be justified since the current society is based on breaking status quo of the earlier societies. For example the catholitic church has changed many times through history, by discovery of the motion of planets, evolution and so on.

My conclusion: Yes.

RIGHT: If you can inflect harm upon other people with no consequences for yourself, do you have "the right" to do it?

Whenever the argument "I have the right" is used is to trumph something through "because I can". It is equivalent to "I do not want to think about it". While it sounds like something established by society as a standard, it is rarely why the standard was established in the first place. Rights can be misused. When you harm people, you are doing wrong, which is in this case is defined by "if you were placed in that vulnerable position you would not like somebody else to harm you". For example, a police officer has privileges in their job that civilians do not have, but these privileges are given under the condition that they think through their actions wisely. To give such privileges without condition results in an abusive society.

My conclusion: No.