Copyright © Philip M. Parker, INSEAD. Terms of Use.
Definition: Right |
RightAdjective1. Free from error; especially conforming to fact or truth; "the correct answer"; "the correct version"; "the right answer"; "took the right road"; "the right decision". 2. Being or located on or directed toward the side of the body to the east when facing north; "my right hand"; "right center field"; "a right-hand turn"; on the right when facing downstream; "the right bank of the river". 3. Socially right or correct; "it isn't right to leave the party without saying goodbye"; "correct behavior". 4. In conformance with justice or law or morality; "do the right thing and confess". 5. Correct in opinion or judgment; "time proved him right". 6. Appropriate for a condition or occasion; "everything in its proper place"; "the right man for the job"; "she is not suitable for the position". 7. Of or belonging to the political or intellectual right. 8. On the right-hand side of a vessel or aircraft when facing forward; "the starboard side". 9. In or into a satisfactory condition; "things are right again now"; "put things right". 10. : intended for the right hand; "a right-hand glove". 11. : in accord with accepted standards of usage or procedure; "what's the right word for this?"; "the right way to open oysters". 12. : (geometry) having the axis perpendicular to the base; "a right angle". 13. : of the side of cloth or clothing intended to face outward; "the right side of the cloth showed the pattern"; "be sure your shirt is right side out". 14. : most suitable or right for a particular purpose; "a good time to plant tomatoes"; "the right time to act"; "the time is ripe for great sociological changes". Adverb1. Precisely, exactly; "stand right here!". 2. Immediately; "she called right after dinner". 3. (informal) exactly; "he fell flop on his face". 4. Toward or on the right; "he looked right and left"; also figuratively; "the party has moved right". 5. In the right manner; "please do your job properly!" "can't you carry me decent?". 6. An interjection expressing agreement. 7. Completely; "she felt right at home"; "he fell right into the trap". 8. (Southern regional intensive) very; "the baby is mighty cute"; "he's mighty tired"; "it is powerful humid"; "that boy is powerful big now"; "they have a right nice place". 9. In accordance with moral or social standards; "that serves him right"; "do right by him". 10. : in a correct manner; "he guessed right". Noun1. An abstract idea of that which is due to a person or governmental body by law or tradition or nature: "they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights"; "Certain rights can never be granted to the government but must be kept in the hands of the people"- Eleanor Roosevelt; "a right is not something that somebody gives you; it is something that nobody can take away". 2. (frequently plural) the interest possessed by law or custom in some intangible thing: "mineral rights"; "film rights". 3. Location near or direction toward the right side; i.e. the side to the south when a person or object faces east: "he stood on the right". 4. A turn to the right; "take a right at the corner". 5. The conservative faction of a political party. 6. Anything in accord with principles of justice; "he feels he is in the right"; "the rightfulness of his claim". 7. The hand that is on the right side of the body; "he writes with his right hand but pitches with his left"; "hit him with quick rights to the body". 8. The piece of ground in the outfield on the catcher's right. Verb1. Make reparations or amends for; "right a wrong". 2. Put in or restore to an upright position; "They righted the sailboat that had capsized". 3. Regain an upright or proper position; "The capsized boat righted again". 4. Make right or correct; "Correct the mistakes". Source: WordNet 1.7.1 Copyright © 2001 by Princeton University. All rights reserved. |
Date "right" was first used in popular English literature: sometime before 1010. (references) |
| Domain | Definition |
Satire | RIGHT, n. Legitimate authority to be, to do or to have; as the right to be a king, the right to do one's neighbor, the right to have measles, and the like. The first of these rights was once universally believed to be derived directly from the will of God; and this is still sometimes affirmed in partibus infidelium outside the enlightened realms of Democracy; as the well known lines of Sir Abednego Bink, following: By what right, then, do royal rulers rule? Whose is the sanction of their state and pow'r? He surely were as stubborn as a mule Who, God unwilling, could maintain an hour His uninvited session on the throne, or air His pride securely in the Presidential chair. Whatever is is so by Right Divine; Whate'er occurs, God wills it so. Good land! It were a wondrous thing if His design A fool could baffle or a rogue withstand! If so, then God, I say (intending no offence) Is guilty of contributory negligence. Source: Devil's Dictionary. |
Finance | A special security issued by a company in a rights offering(typically good for only a short period)that gives a stockholder the right to purchase new shares issued by the corporation at a preset price, usually below the market price. Source: European Union. (references) |
Fine Arts | In stage directions the right-hand side of the stage facing the audience. The actor's right. In most thetres the "O. P. side". Source: European Union. (references) |
Slang in 1811 | RIGHT. All right! A favourite expression among thieves, to signify that all is as they wish, or proper for their purpose. All right, hand down the jemmy; every thing is in proper order, give me the crow. Source: 1811 Dictionary of the Vulgar Tongue. |
Tips from 1870 | Usage: Right. This little word has many meanings and is put to many uses. In the following senses it should be avoided: "Stand right here." In most instances the briefer expression, "Stand here," is sufficient. If it is necessary to locate the place more definitely or to emphasize the position, "Stand just here," or "Stand on this very spot," may be better. "The train came to a standstill right here." Better, "The train stopped just here." "Do it right away." This is a colloquialism that should be avoided. Immediately, instantly, at once, without delay, are expressions that may safely be substituted for right away. "I heard of your misfortune, and came to you right away." "John, post this letter for me right off." Directly or immediately, in the place of right away and right off, is better English. "James is right sick, and the doctor comes to see him right often." The use of right as an intensive with adjectives and adverbs is very common in many quarters. Quite ill or very ill is better than right sick, and often or frequently is better than right often. "We have a right good crop of wheat this year." Use very instead of right. "You have as good a right to be punished as I have." The person addressed would gladly relinquish his right. "You merit punishment as well as I," or "You deserve to be punished," etc. Source: Slips of Speech. |
Source: compiled by the editor from various references; see credits. | |
(From Wikipedia, the free Encyclopedia)
Civil rights are those legal protections granted to citizens under the jurisdiction of the civil law of a state. They are distinguished from human rights in that they may be violated or removed, and they may or may not apply to all individuals living within the borders of that state.Civil rights may include the right to vote, right to property, right to bear arms, right to free speech, right to privacy, right to associate, etc.
Civil rights movements have existed in many countries.
United States
The United States Constitution and its amendments guarantee a number of rights to its citizens.
In 1964 civil rights workers Michael Schwerner, Andrew Goodman and James Chaney were lynched by the Ku Klux Klan in Mississippi. Their deaths shocked the United States' public and Congress and helped pass the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Canada
The Constitution of Canada includes the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which guarantees many of the same rights as the US constitution, with the notable exception of protection against an establishment of religion as the Anglican Church of Canada is nominally the state religion. It should be pointed out that this nominal connection with an religious body in no way interferes with freedom of religion which is protected by the Charter.
Northern Ireland
In Northern Ireland the Civil Rights movement developed in the 1960s among Northern Irish nationalists who demanded an end to what was seen as Unionist discrimination, in the form of the gerrymandering of local electoral districts to ensure the victory of unionist candidates in areas with nationalist majorities, and in discrimination in the awarding of local authority housing. One of the leaders of the Civil Rights movement was future Nobel Peace Prize winner John Hume, another, Austin Currie, a candidate for President of Ireland in 1990. Hume's co-Nobel Lauraute, David Trimble, leader of the Ulster Unionist Party in the 1990s and 2000s, called the Northern Ireland of the 1960s a "cold house for catholics".
United Kingdom
The UK has no formal written constitution, however it is a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) which covers both human rights and civil rights. In 2001 the UK derogated from Article Five of the ECHR in order to allow indefinite detention without trial of foreign nationals suspected of involvement with terrorism.
See also:
- civil rights movement
- Civil Rights Act
- civil rights history
- US civil rights movement
- American Civil Liberties Union
- European Convention on Human Rights
- civil disobedience
- freedom
- human rights
- rights
- privacy
- Northern Ireland
- Social Democratic and Labour Party
Source: adapted by the editor from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia under a copyleft GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) from the article "Civil rights."
(From Wikipedia, the free Encyclopedia)
Note: This page combines the content of the two former articles on 'Value Theory' and 'Goodness' which had similar subject matter.A definition of goodness would be valuable because it might allow one to construct a good life or society by reliable processes of deduction, elaboration or prioritisation. One could answer the ancient question, "How then should we live?"
Philosophers over the ages have worked hard on this question, in parallel with non-philosophers work to reach an answer. It is now (perhaps more than previously) recognised that academic approaches to the question are apparently inconclusive. But people (incorrigibly, some philosophers may say) take the clear view that goodness exists, and they spend a good part of their waking life pursuing it in the form they see as correct, occasionally having their views on goodness amended under the influence of others.
Philosophical approaches are thus separate from the answers which most of us live out in the decisions we make about leading our everyday lives, and what we pursue as good:
This article is about philosophical and academic approaches to a definition of goodness. Chiefly, it considers Western philosophical approaches but other viewpoints will be mentioned where relevant. (Those with an interest in and knowledge e.g. Eastern philosophy are welcome to edit and contribute as they see fit.)
- Goodness, Miss West, what wonderful diamonds!
- Goodness had nothing to do with it, honey!
Sadly, known definitions are meaningless, circular, or long lists of cultural values.
Moral versus other goods
There's an important difference between the words "morally good" as applied to persons and actions , as when we say that Mary's a morally good person and her honesty is good, and "good" in other senses, as when we say that a banana split is good. So what is really worthwhile? What is really desirable? That is the important question which has concerned philosophers and politicians down through the centuries, and they have usually focussed on the sense of "morally good", as applied to persons and actions.
Kant: Hypothetical and Categorical Imperatives.
Kant's (1724-1804) thinking was influential in Moral Philosophy. He pursued the idea of moral value as a unique and universally identifiable property. He showed that many practical goods are good only in states-of-affairs described by a sentence containing an "if" clause. Further, the "if" clause often described the category in which the judgment was made (Art,science, etc.). Kant described these as "hypothetical goods," and tried to find a "categorical" good that would operate across all categories of judgment.
An influential result of Kant's search was the idea of a good will as being the only good in itself.
He saw a good will as acting in accordance with a moral command, the "Categorical Imperative": "Act according to those maxims that you could will to be universal law." From this, and a few other axioms, Kant developed a moral system that would apply to any "praiseworthy person." (See Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals, third section, [446]-[447].)
It's clear that any general definition of goodness must define goods that are categorical in the sense that Kant intended.
Goodness as a property
One problem is that 'goodness' seems not to be definable, and therefore it is sometimes thought not to be a real property of the world.
Attempted definitions of goodness fail in known ways. Definitions generally either describe traits or properties of a real object or set of objects, or divide the concept into other, subsidiary concepts. Both approaches have failed to define goodness. Either the definition provided is circular, or we are left without any substantial or meaningful definition at all.
As a result, philosophers have tried desperate expedients to get some of the value that such a definition would provide.
Problems with definitions using traits or properties:
Most philosophers find that the traits or properties that would justify calling a thing good are different for different categories of judgment. For example, the criteria by which we judge art to be good are different from those by which we judge people to be good. A famous early discussion of this problem is by Aristotle, in his Nicomachean Ethics (at 1096a5).
Many judgments of goodness translate to prices, but this appears to be a summary or effect of judgment, not a cause. For example, a piece of art found in an attic may be sold for the price of a meal. A collector may then recognise it as a lost work of a famous artist, and sell it for more than the price of a house. The price changed because the collector had better judgment than the owner who kept it in an attic.
If goodness were a common trait or property, we should be able to abstract it, but no one has succeeded. Thus goodness is widely believed not to be a property of any natural thing or state of affairs.
Of course, this belief is open to trivial skepticism: Perhaps philosophers just haven't stumbled across the right definition. However, after several thousand years, the prospect is bleak.
One wonders where such an immaterial trait as goodness could reside. An obvious answer is "Inside people." Some philosophers go so far as to say that if some state of affairs does not tend to arouse a desirable subjective state in self-aware beings, then it cannot be good.
Although the elusive definition of external "objective" goodness could be used to construct rational morals and legislation, a subjective definition of goodness could be useful to help one live a good life.
Shortcomings of Subjectivism
In this connection it is useful to discuss relativism, or subjectivism, about intrinsic goods. Values subjectivism states that to answer the question, "What things are intrinsically good?" we need only answer a further question, "Well, what do I, or what does my group, want not merely as a means to something else, but for itself?"
But there are clear problems with this theory. We can be wrong about what is good for us. A clear example is where people derive pleasure from imprisoning and then torturing people. Most people want to say that this practice is criminal, and that the pleasure taken torturing people is not at all valuable or good in any sense. That, in fact, the pleasure is so bad that it is a very great evil .
Intrinsic versus instrumental goodness
A fundamental distinction is between instrumental and intrinsic goodness. This was discussed by Aristotle: an intrinsically good thing, even if it doesn't help you get anything else that's good, is still worth having for itself.
First, some instrumental goods: a hammer, or a radio. So hammers and radios, are instrumentally good.
Some plausible examples of things which are often held to be intrinsically good: the pleasure we get from listening to a great piece of music, or understanding philosophy.
Take understanding: the people who like such subjects as Science and Philosophy will often swear that understanding is something that is worthwhile in itself.
But it's not always an either-or proposition. Some things are both good in themselves, and good for getting other things that are good. They are both intrinsically and instrumentally good, for example understanding.
The important question was: "What sorts of things are good, or valuable?" And now that question can be made more precise. Ultimately we want to know what things are intrinsically valuable. What things are good in themselves?
We all know very well that we have to pursue some instrumentally good things in order to get the intrinsically good things. For example, most people pursue money as merely an instrumentally good thing, so that they can afford what they call "the finer things in life," and those things, like concerts, vacations, and of course a happy family, are supposed to be good in themselves, or intrinsically good. But it's ultimately, in any case, the things we believe to be intrinsically good that we want. So up at the top of the hierarchy of goods that we aim at, there are the intrinsic goods. And the question is: What are they? Which things are intrinsically good?
Pragmatism and Intrinsic goodness
John Dewey (1859-1952) in his book Theory of Valuation saw goodness as the outcome of valuation. Valuation is a continuous balancing of ends in view, i.e. of objectives which we contingently adopt, which we then refine or reject based on their (or their precondition's) consistency with other objectives or means to objectives, held by ourselves or others.
Intrinsic goodness then would only be accepted by him as a transitory property which depends on the situational context, being mainly based on facts about things other than the thing which is judged intrinsically good.
In short his empirical approach did not accept intrinsic value as an inherent or enduring property of things. He saw it as an illusory product of our continuous valuing activity as purposive beings. In his view, all goodness is best understood as instrumental, with no contrasting intrinsic goodness.
Hedonism
Epicurus made the first known attempt to define goodness as subjective pleasure, and its opposite as pain. This is called Hedonism. (See Lives of Eminent Philosophers by Diogenes Laertius)
However, simple hedonism is rejected even by most hedonists because there seem to be pleasures that are bad (e.g. eating too much) and pains that are good (e.g. going to the dentist).
There are other problems with identifying goodness as pleasure. It's strange to say that carrying out one's duty (which is obviously good) has anything to do with pleasure. Also, the sense of achievement following completion of one's work is rarely considered pleasure, although it is clearly good to finish one's work.
Aristotle even distinguished genuine happiness from amusement, and virtuous from base pleasures. This makes some sense because useful work (like the Wikipedia) is seen as better than mere amusement (such as a chat room).
The usual fix of Hedonism is to consider consequences, as well as pleasure and pain. For example. going to a dentist has a small amount of pain now, but avoids a great deal more later. However, even consequentialism is strained when considering duty.
Happiness or pleasure can often be recognized, which solves many problems for Hedonism. But there are more problems with Hedonism. No known definitions of happiness or pleasure have met objections similar to those of a definition of goodness: The situations producing the happiness or pleasure are different in different categories of action.
Furthermore, the conditions and consequences of pleasure, or pain, can seem to be either good or bad, and thus undermine our judgement about that pleasure or pain.
Neither happiness nor pleasure has been conceptually divided (analyzed) in a way that permits deductive choices of real-world alternatives.
So consider that the only intrinsically good things in the world are good pleasures. But then aren't we giving a circular account of "good" -- if we are saying that the good things are good pleasures, then we're using the word "good" to define itself.
Alternatively, we try to find out which pleasures will result in the most other pleasures. Then we call those pleasures "intrinsically good," and only then do we say: "the only instrinsically good things in the world are good pleasures." That allows us to get around the circularity problem.
But this is flawed. Imagine a nation of sadists. The public torture of one person in such a nation may produce more pleasure than any other event, since everyone's basic (not to say base) urges would be satisfied vicariously. But of course such an action would not be good.
So pleasure seems a poor candidate as a criteria of goodness.
Non-cognitivism
Some philosophers, in the face of apparently intransigent undefinability or circularity, pursued the line that goodness was a special property which was not empirically verifiable, like 'redness' or 'circular'.
For example, G.E. Moore blamed this circularity on what he called "The Naturalistic Fallacy". He believed that people had a sort of nonphysical intuition that could sense goodness, which was then falsely projected onto things and fallaciously treated as a natural property. Few people believe in this intuitionism, but the term has stuck because goodness is so widely thought nonphysical, or no physical basis can be found for it.
Others described a theory called Emotivism, simplistically referred to as the 'Boo-Hurray' theory of morality. It was thought by emotivists that to call something wrong, or good, was either to express a feeling of disapproval or approval, or to simply state that one disapproved or approved.
Emotivism did not bear up well as an explanation of goodness. For example, people's emotions vary according to situation, person or circumstance. But goodness is usually conceived as being constant across all situations. Also torture, for example does not become good because it is approved: and public disapproval does not always mean that an action is wrong. Therefore emotions are an inconsistent and inaccurate, guide to goodness.
Circularity in the analysis of 'goodness'
The other form of definitions of goodness is to try to divide the concept of goodness into smaller, more understandable concepts.
It has been thought that if some conception of goodness were divided, or causally regressed far enough, the process would eventually come to a logical stopping place, an "ultimate good." However all known forms of such regressions appear to be either circular, or open to skepticism.
Attempts to translate, divide or causally regress the concept of goodness usually fail in a particular way. Every such attempt seems to end up with one or more subconcepts prefixed with the word "good" or related words like "pleasure," "dutiful," "praiseworthy", or "virtuous." Such definitions appear to be circular, and therefore are believed invalid.
The circularity of causal regression hits scientific definitions of goodness especially hard, because it seems to indicate that science cannot study goodness. Some philosophers have gone so far as to say that science can only study "what is", not "what should be." They claim that there is an unsurmountable gap between facts and values, the "fact -value distinction"
The clearest proponent of this viewpoint was David Hume in A Treatise Concerning Human Understanding, who famously said that there is no logical way to move from statements about facts to statements about what ought to be. It is not illogical for a person to prefer the destruction of the world rather than suffer a small injury to their finger.
The evasiveness of a definition of 'goodness'.
Many philosophers tried to end the regressions by applying an auxiliary evaluation that helps the general regression to a stopping place. This auxiliary evaluation is often open to skepticism.
For example, Aristotle considered "The supreme element of happiness" to be theoretical study, because it "ruled all others." (Nicomachean Ethics, 1177a15) In this case, supremity was the auxiliary evaluation that could be doubted.
He also supported the ancient Greek view which said that it was not happiness , which is a mental state over time, which is intrinsically good -- it is, instead, something like happiness, but eudaimonia, for which there is no word in English, except perhaps the word "flourishing" or "well-being." Eudaimonia is more than simply happiness; it is a happy life that is well -lived .
Happiness is a subjective state. Eudaimonia is an objective state; literally, it means something like "having a good spirit." Thus this line of argument ends in circularity also.
Thomas Aquinas (1224-1274) appproached the problem by asserting that everything sensed was an effect, with an earlier cause. Each immediate (proximal) cause was less diluted in goodness, and therefore, the first cause would have to be perfectly good. In this case, the concept of dilution might be doubted as an inaccurate metaphor, or that the dilution necessarily scales back to perfection (maybe the first cause was very good, instead of perfect). One might also doubt that the causal regression ends: It might be circular, for instance.
Another improvement is to distinguish contributory goods. These have the same qualities as the good thing, but need some emergent property of a whole state-of-affairs in order to be good. For example salt is food, but is usually good only as part of a prepared meal. Other exampless come from music and language.
Most philosophers that think goods have to create desirable mental states also say that goods are experiences of self-aware beings. These philosophers often distinguish the experience, which thay call an intrinsic good, from the things that seem to cause the experience, which they call "inherent" goods.
Collectivism versus Individualism: Contributory Goods
We may want to go beyond eudamonia by saying that an individual person's flourishing is valuable only as a means to the flourishing of society as a whole. In other words, a single person's life is, ultimately, not important or worthwhile in itself, but is good only as a means to the success of society as a whole.
Some elements of Confucianism are an example of this, encouraging the view that people ought to conform as individuals to the demands of a peaceful and ordered society.
So the question at issue now is: Is an individual's life intrinsically good, or is it merely instrumentally good? Is an individual's life, well-lived, something that is desirable for its own sake, or is it desirable, ultimately, only as a means to having a happy society?
We can use the terms "values individualism" and "values collectivism" to mark the dispute. Here are some definitions:
Values individualism is the view that only individual lives (or their eudaimonia ) are intrinsically valuable; and so they are valuable not merely as a means to the flourishing of society.
Values collectivism is the view that individual lives (or their eudaimonia) are only instrumentally valuable, i.e., good only as a means to, or as an outcome of the flourishing of society; the flourishing of society (whatever this might be) is the only intrinsically good thing.
We are then faced with the problem of how to choose, and on what basis, between values collectivism and values individualism.
Radical values environmentalism: transcendental value
For the sake of completeness, there is a view beyond the collective/indiviualist duality, held by some environmentalists. They feel that it's not merely the flourishing of society that is the only intrinsically good thing. It's the flourishing of all sentient life . Or perhaps all life, period.
Radical values environmentalism is the view that the only intrinsically good thing is a flourishing ecosystem; individuals and societies are merely instrumentally valuable, good only as means to having a flourishing ecosystem.
This is reminiscent of the philosophy of Hegel(1770-1831). Hegel rejected individualism as expressed for example in both the American and the French revolutions. Individualism, he felt, runs directly contrary to the nature of humanity and reality, since the individual has value and reality only as a part of a greater and unified whole.
Another similar viewpoint is that of Taoism, the ancient Chinese philosophy which advocated quietism and conformity to the Way, or Tao: "The Tao is the natural order of things. It is a force that flows through every living or sentient object, as well as through the entire universe".-Wikipedia
This sort of holism seems an odd point of view: in our experience goodness, or value exists within an ecosystem, Earth. What kind of being could validly apply the word to an ecosystem as a whole? Who would have the power to assess and judge an ecosystem as good or bad? By what criteria? Perhaps this view could be grounded in a Hegelian Absolute Mind, or in the concept of God, but these concepts are not accepted as providing an elucidation of everyday examples of goodness.
Nevertheless, it should be noted that many people get support in accepting the fact that God created the world, and therefore that it has a purpose and value which lies beyond our understanding.
Utilitarianism
Jeremy Bentham's book The Principles of Morals and Legislation prioritized goods by considering pleasure, pain and consequences. This theory had a wide effect on public affairs, up to and including the present day. A similar system was later named Utilitarianism by John Mill.Utilitarianism succeeds in many cases. However Utilitarianism has some questionable implications.
For example, it considers all goods as interchangeable. If feeding a starving child would cause the child to feel sick, and not permanently improve his situation, a Utilitarian would prefer to spend the money on a car for a rich man.
Unhappily, the utilitarian argument to permit abortions is of the same form as this questionable type, though with changed quantities. To see this, substitute "unconscious fetus, destined for loveless poverty" for "starving, hopeless child" and "improved woman's income" for "rich man's watch."
To a humanist, who values human life above all else, the form of the judgment remains invalid, while a utilitarian might agree with the statement, based on the changed magnitudes of value.
In another widely questioned set of judgments, Utilitarians weigh the pleasures and pains of men and animals in the same scale. (See PETA, an animal rights organization based firmly on Utilitarian ideals.)
John Rawls' book A Theory of Justice prioritized social arrangements and goods based on their contribution to justice. Rawls defined justice as fairness, especially in distributing social goods, defined fairness in terms of procedures, and attempted to prove that just institutions and lives are good, if rational individuals' goods are considered fairly.
Rawls' crucial invention was "the original position," a procedure in which one tries to make objective moral decisions by refusing to let personal facts about oneself enter one's moral calculations.
A problem with both Kant's and Rawls' approach is that goodness appears to be both prior to and essential to fairness, and different for different beings. Procedurally fair processes of the type used by Kant and Rawls may reduce the totality of goodness, and thereby be unfair.
For example, if two people are found to own an orange, the standard fair procedure is to cut it in two, and give half to each. However, if one wants to eat it, while the other wants the rind to flavor a cake, cutting it in two is clearly less good than giving the peel to the baker, and feeding the meat to the eater.
Many people judge that if both procedures are known, using the first procedurally-fair procedure to mediate between a baker and an eater is unfair because it is not as good.
Applying procedural fairness to an entire society therefore seems certain to create recognizable inefficiencies, and therefore be unfair, and (by the equivalence of justice with fairness) unjust.
This strikes at the very foundation of Kantian ethics, because it shows that hypothetical goods can be better than categorical goods, and therefore be more desirable, and even more just.
Summary: Values pluralism and the grading of values.
Notice that there is a succession of things which can be considered as the kind of thing which is intrinsically good: from particular events of pleasure, to an individual's happiness, to an individual's eudaimonia , to the flourishing of a society, to the flourishing of an entire ecosystem. So it can be seen that there is a rather difficult problem about the scope of the theory of value. Where do you stop, in this succession of items, in your account of what is valuable for its own sake?
If you say that an individual pleasure is valuable for its own sake, then why don't you say that an individual's entire happiness is valuable for its own sake? And so forth: and on reaching the end of this sequence, we find ourselves valuing ecosystems which is itself an activity which seems metaphysical, inexplicable.
As a values pluralist, you might say: every item in this succession of items is intrinsically good. The goodness of a particular experience, of an individual's whole life, of society, and of an ecosystem, are all worth having for their own sake, and not merely as a means to something else. So as a values pluralist you would say: I don't have to decide which of these things is intrinsically good, because they are all intrinsically good.
That position does not seem to hold up to careful scrutiny. Sometimes we have a choice , for example, to sacrifice our own pleasure, or happiness, or even our own lives, for the sake of many other people. In these cases two things are weighed: your own individual happiness, and the more general happiness of a lot of other people. And if you conclude that you should sacrifice your own happiness, in one of these ways, what does that amount to?
It could say that your own life is worthwhile in and of itself, and that it is also worthwhile as a means to the happiness of others. Remember, the same thing can be both instrumentally and intrinsically good: understanding, or knowledge, is one possible example. It is clear that a human life might be another, and in that way we might want to defend values pluralism. Two different things, your life and the good of society, can both be intrinsically good, even though you might sacrifice the first for the second. There's no contradiction in saying that.
Indeed, existentialism faces this dilemma in an egregious way: since being precedes essence, then our choices are paramount in setting our values. It makes little sense to evaluate one action over another: if they are real choices then they are expressions of our being, and of our ultimate freedom. Jean Paul Sartre faced the famous difficulty of being unable to decide whether it was better to stay at home to care for his elderly mother, or to go to war in the defence of his country.
We are left with an unresolved issue: the issue of the relative importance of intrinsic values. If these things are to be ranked in order of importance, how would the ranking go? So a person could be a values pluralist and still be an individualist, or a collectivist, or a radical environmentalist. It would just have to be said that the most important thing, the most valuable thing, is my own flourishing; or, instead, the flourishing of society; or, perhaps, the flourishing of the environment.
But this leaves us back at the start of the argument: on what basis do we, should we, choose in cases of conflict? Why is one thing better than another? Why is anything good?
Conclusion
After all this, we can see why the notion or thing called 'goodness' has a claim on being the most important, yet the most puzzling area of philosophy.
So much in our day to day life involves apparent value judgements: crucial life decisions we make, the habits we develop and transmit to our children, our deepest political convictions.
Academic philosophy seems to provide no objective criteria or decision process to help us in our decision making or reflections on these matters.
Hypothetical imperatives can outweigh Categorical imperatives, as we have seen, and intrinsic goods can be outweighed by instrumental goods. For each proposed ideal candidate for being called good, we seem able to envisage a situation where that candidate is judged bad.
Further, the prospect of the quest being successful, that goodness could finally be analysed, satisfactorily defined and universally agreed is unsettling in some ways. Perhaps the definition could be used in a totalitarian way, perhaps the world would lose some of its plurality, there may be a loss of diversity in society and in ways of life. So we are left with the paradoxical situation that ultimate, incontrovertible knowledge of what is good may not itself seem good or desirable.
Perhaps the only certainty we can have from looking at the investigations of philosopers over the centuries is that:
These conclusions may in the long run be more likely to give us some practical guidance in a world of multiple choice and of bewildering pluralism.
- What is good cannot be defined in abstraction from situations and our experience of them, academic approaches have so far proved infertile.
- There seems to be no enduring thing which can be said to be absolutely good in itself.
- Perhaps an inductive, empirical based investigation of goodness as the outcome of situations of valuation activity would be a more productive approach.
See also: Meta-ethics, Descriptive ethics , Inductive reasoning
Source: adapted by the editor from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia under a copyleft GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) from the article "Goodness and value theory."
(From Wikipedia, the free Encyclopedia)
This article concentrates on legal rights. For the political trend or ideology, see Right wing.
In jurisprudence and law, a right is the legal or moral entitlement to do or refrain from doing something or to obtain or refrain from obtaining an action, thing or recogition in civil society. Compare with privilege.
Generally speaking a right corresponds with a complementary obligation that others have on the same object or realm; for instance if someone has a right on a thing, simultaneously another party or parties have an obligation to do something (or to abstain from doing something) in order to respect that right or to give concrete execution to that right. Property rights provide a good example: society recognizes that individuals have title to particular property as defined by the transaction by which they acquired the property granting the individual free use and possession of the property. In many cases, especially regarding ideological and similar rights, the obligation depends on the legal system in its entirety, or on the state, or on the generical universality of other subjects submitted to the law.
The right can therefore be a faculty of doing something, of omitting or refusing to do something or of claiming something. Some interpretations express a typical form of right in the faculty of using something, and this is more often related to the right of property. The faculty (in all the above mentioned senses) can be originated by a (generical or specific) law, or by a private contract (which is sometimes exactly defined as a specific law between or among volunteer parties).
Other interpretations consider the right as a sort of freedom of something or as the object of justice. One of the definitions of justice is in fact the obligation that the legal system has toward the individual or toward the collectivity to grant respect or execution to his/her/its right, ordinarily with no need of explicit claim.
Rights can be divided into individual rights, that are held by citizens as individuals (or corporations) recognised by the legal system, and into collective rights, held by an ensemble of citizens or a subgroup of citizens whose actions are regulated by the same system. There is a tension between individual and collective rights.
With reference to the object of the right, a common general distinction is among:
(see also: negative rights)
- intellectual rights, which include:
- civil rights
- religious rights
- rights of opinion
(see also: positive rights, exclusive rights)
- real rights (from the latin word "res", thing), which include:
- property rights
- rights of use
- liberties
Particular systems can (or could in the past) include special rights like:
- please complete list with generally shared elements
please complete list with specific elements
- fief rights, which included:
- economical rights (like the right to collect taxes)
- performance rights (like the jus primae noctis)
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
In 1948 the United Nations made the above declaration[1], which was an over-arching set of standards by which Governments, organisations and individuals would measure their behaviour towards each other.
This Declaration introduced the notion in the public realm that rights had a moral dimension, independent of and overriding where relevant the legislature or government which granted specific legal rights. The notion was not new, e. g. Thomas Paine had argued in this way in his book The Rights of Man.
Other general Declarations have followed, notably the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1989[1].
See also: jurisprudence -- law -- Animal rights -- Bill of rights -- Human rights -- individual rights -- Freedom -- Freedom of religion -- Freedom of speech -- Freedom of the press -- Social contract --
Source: adapted by the editor from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia under a copyleft GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) from the article "Right."
(From Wikipedia, the free Encyclopedia)
The Right Bank (Rive Droite) is opposite the Left Bank, and generally is the northern half of the city of Paris, France. It is so called because the northern half of Paris is on the right bank of the Seine as the river flows out to sea.Like the Left Bank, and due to its association with places such as Place Vendôme, the Right Bank can now be used to refer to a level of elegance and sophistication now found in its more bohemian sister to the south. Its most famous street is undeniably the Champs Elysees, but there are others such as Rue de la Paix, Rue de Rivoli, and Avenue Montaigne.
Arrondissement - Paris is divided up into twenty arrondissements or districts. The "First" is in the center of the city, and the others are laid out in a clockwise manner about this. As these are such a basic unit to the city, they are constantly referred to in guides and literature; almost always using simply their associated number (1er, or 2ème etc). The Louvre is in the First, the Arc de Triomphe is in the Eighth. NB: You can determine the arrondissement of an address from its postal code. The last two digits of a Paris address give the arrondissement; 75018 is the eighteenth for example. The exception to this rule are addresses with the word "CEDEX" appearing in them.
The Marais - Comprised of roughly the 3rd and 4th arrondissements (Right Bank) it is a quartier which has retained many small streets and hints at how Old Paris looked.
Haussmann - This Baron was responsible for the significant urban planning project of 1852 - 1870. The twenty arrondissements date from this time. Haussmann pushed through many of the major boulevards through the old sections of the city.
Métro - the Paris subway. It is extensive and serves nearly every corner of the city. The last trains are around 00h30.
RER - Réseau Express Régional; similar to the Métro except that it also serves the outlying suburbs and regions of Paris. In the center of the city, the distance between RER stations is more significant than for the Métro; an advantage if you want to go larger distances quickly - even in the center of the city.
Bateaux Mouches - This is the name given to tourist boats which ply the Seine. Literally translated it means the "fly boats". The name probably comes from the district of Lyon - "La mouche" - the place where such boats were commonplace before they were in Paris.
Source: adapted by the editor from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia under a copyleft GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) from the article "Right Bank."
(From Wikipedia, the free Encyclopedia)
In politics, right-wing is the name given to conservative-type politics of all degrees.It is the opposite of left-wing politics, with both terms originating in early nineteenth-century French parliamentary practice. The monarchists tended to group themselves on the right of the chamber, while the constitutionalists or radical reformers would sit on the left. From this, "the right" came to mean support for a strong monarchy, while "the left" implied support for a more democratic government.
Today, the term right-wing is sometimes used in a positive sense by conservatives who see themselves as defending society, and its traditional institutions and freedoms, from what they consider the irrational liberalism or socialism of the left.
It is also used as a perjorative by leftists who interpret the right as defending the traditional power of aristocrats, royalty, established religions and the wealthy against that of commoners. In this sense, the term has also come to be used for nationalist or racist movements which promote the interests of a dominant majority, or in the case of South Africa a ruling minority, above the rights of other groups. Historically, the radical right has sometimes been associated with fascism or nazism, just like the radical left has with communism or Marxism. Of course, most groups on the left and right tend to vigorously deny any such linkage.
Beyond Left and Right
In many western countries, the Right is often associated with laissez-faire economics. However, historically free market economics has been classed as both right- and left-wing ideas, depending on the context. It was left-wing during the French Revolution, since it represented a fundamental change from the then-current feudal system which favored the aristocracy. It is also considered a progressive doctrine in the former Soviet Union, since it represents a shift of power away from the communist elite. Perhaps the best way to understand the difference between Left and Right is property rights. A clear example of this is their different stances over taxation, land usage, and similar issues.
Because of this confusing usage, some consider the terms Right and Left to be obsolete, and prefer to distinguish political views based not on their attitude to property ownership as such, but on centralized versus decentralized government, attitude to civil liberties, or the natural environment. Libertarianism, Anarchism, Feminism and Green politics all defy simple classification on the traditional left-right axis, though (fairly or unfairly) the former is sometimes associated with the Right and the latter two with the Left, at least in the west. There are also those who explicitly distance themselves from both the Right and Left by claiming to be "moderates" or, more recently, "radical centristss."
See also
- Political spectrum
- Conservative
Other meanings
Right wing is also a player's position in sports such as soccer and ice hockey.
Source: adapted by the editor from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia under a copyleft GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) from the article "Right-wing politics."
(From Wikipedia, the free Encyclopedia)
- This article concerns rules of the road in the sense concerning land vehicles.
- For Inland Rules of the Road, which concern avoiding collisions near land among ships and boats, see seamanship.
Rules of the road are quite different all around the world. Driving safely is usually easier if you can adapt to both written and unwritten local rules of the road.
Left or right?
see also road
The first rule to learn for a particular country is which side to drive on. This is so fundamental that it is sometimes known simply as the rule of the road.
Approximately one quarter of the world's drivers drive on the left-hand side of the road. Most of the countries that drive on the left are former colonies of the British Empire; Japan also accounts for a large fraction of the exceptions. The first legal reference in Britain to an order for traffic to remain on the left occurred in 1756 with regard to London Bridge. The General Highways Act of 1773, contained a recommendation that horse traffic remain on the left and this was enshrined in the Highways Bill in 1835.
Most early motor carss had the drivers seat in the middle. Later some manufacturers chose to have the driver's seat nearest the centre of the road in order to look out for oncoming traffic whilst others chose to put the seat on the other side so that the drivers could avoid damaging their vehicles on walls, hedges, roadside gutters and other obstacles. Eventually the former idea prevailed.
Countries that Drive on the Left
Summary
Lumping regions where feasible, and omitting only some countries that are small in both area and population:
- Americas: Bermuda, Caribbean islands (except Martinique, Guadeloupe, Netherlands Antilles, Aruba, Cuba, Haiti and Dominican Republic) Guyana, Suriname, Falkland Islands
- Europe: UK (including Channel Islands and Isle of Man), Ireland, Malta, Cyprus
- Africa: south and southeast (including Mauritius, but not Madagascar)
- Asia: South Asia (except Afghanistan); Japan, Hong Kong, Macau, South East Asia (except the Philippines,Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia and Myanmar)
- Oceania: all (including Australia, but not Samoa, French Polynesia, New Caledonia, Wallis and Futuna)
Changing sides
Most countries have changed in order to ease border crossings. For example, former British colonies in West Africa, such as Gambia, Sierra Leone, Nigeria and Ghana changed over, as they all shared borders with former French colonies, which drove on the right. There are still many instances of having to change sides at border crossings, such as between Uganda and Sudan or Pakistan and Afghanistan. In Hong Kong and Macau, traffic continues to drive on the left, unlike in mainland China, despite the fact that they are now Special Administrative Regions of the People's Republic of China. However, Taiwan, formerly under Japanese rule, changed to driving on the right in 1946 after becoming part of the Republic of China, along with some mainland Chinese provinces, as did Korea under US and Soviet occupation.
Port Stanley, Falkland Islands, 1982- Arrows, painted on road
by Argentine forces, directing islanders to drive on the right
Foreign Occupation
However, many countries changed the rule of the road as a result of foreign occupation, notably during the Napoleonic Wars. More recently there are examples such as Austria, Czechoslovakia and Hungary under German rule in the 1930s and '40ss. The Channel Islands also changed to driving on the right under German occupation, but changed back after liberation in 1945, as did the Falkland Islands under Argentine occupation in 1982. East Timor changed to driving on the left under Indonesian rule in 1976, and continues the practice as an independent state.
Italy
In Italy the practice of driving on the right first began in the late 1890s, but it was not until the mid 1920s that it became standard throughout the country. The practice was first introduced in cities under socialist control, such as Rome and Naples, with conservative-controlled cities like Milan and Turin continuing to drive on the left. Cars remained right-hand drive (RHD) until the mid 1920s, with Lancia not producing left-hand drive (LHD) cars until as late as the early 1960s.
Canada
Until the 1920s, the rule of the road in Canada varied from province to province, with British Columbia, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, drving on the left, and the other provinces and territories driving on the right. Between 1920 and 1923, these provinces changed over to driving on the right. Newfoundland was not part of Canada until 1949, and drove on the left until 1947.
Stockholm on Dagen HSweden had left-hand traffic (Vänstertrafik in Swedish) from approximately 1736. It continued to do so well into the 20th century despite the fact that virtually all the cars on the road in Sweden were actually LHD. Also, Sweden's neighbours, Norway, Finland and Denmark already drove on the right, leading to confusion at border crossings. In 1955 a referendum was held on the issue, resulting in an 83%-to-16% vote against a change to driving on the right. Nevertheless, in 1963 the Swedish government passed legislation ordering the switch to right-hand traffic.
The changeover took place on a Sunday morning at 5am on September 3, 1967, which was known in Swedish as Dagen H (H-Day), the 'H' being for Högertrafik or right-hand traffic. Iceland changed the following year, in 1968.
Complete List
This list should be consulted regarding any country that is small in both area and population
- Anguilla
- Antigua and Barbuda
- Australia
- Bahamas
- Bangladesh
- Barbados
- Bermuda
- Bhutan
- Botswana
- Brunei
- Cayman Islands
- Christmas Island (Australia)
- Cocos (Keeling) Islands (Australia)
- Cook Islands
- Cyprus
- Dominica
- East Timor
- Falkland Islands
- Fiji
- Gambia
- Grenada
- Guernsey (Channel Islands, cars are not allowed on the islands of Sark and Herm)
- Guyana
- Hong Kong
- India
- Indonesia
- Ireland
- Isle of Man
- Jamaica
- Japan
- Jersey (Channel Islands)
- Kenya
- Kiribati
- Lesotho
- Macau
- Malawi
- Malaysia
- Maldives
- Malta
- Mauritius
- Montserrat
- Mozambique
- Namibia
- Nauru
- Nepal
- New Zealand
- Niue
- Norfolk Island (Australia),
- Pakistan
- Papua New Guinea
- Pitcairn Islands (United Kingdom)
- Saint Helena
- Saint Kitts and Nevis
- Saint Lucia
- Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
- Singapore
- Solomon Islands
- South Africa
- Sri Lanka
- Suriname
- Swaziland
- Tanzania
- Thailand
- Tokelau (New Zealand
- Tonga
- Trinidad and Tobago
- Turks and Caicos Islands
- Tuvalu
- Uganda
- United Kingdom
- British Virgin Islands
- U.S. Virgin Islands
- Zambia
- Zimbabwe
Anomalies
Caribbean
In many Caribbean islands where traffic drives on the left, such as the British Virgin Islands, U.S. Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, theBahamas and Turks and Caicos Islands, most if not all passenger cars are LHD, being imported from the United States. Only government cars are RHD.
Japan
In Japan, foreign brands of car sold locally have traditionally been LHD, which is regarded as a status symbol. This even applies to British brands, in spite of the fact that authentic British cars have the steering wheel on the right. However, some US manufacturers have made RHD models for the Japanese market, though with limited success, and as European brands become more popular, the preference is increasngly for RHD models.
Myanmar (Burma)
As a former British colony, Burma (now called Myanmar) drove on the left until 1970, when the military regime of Ne Win decreed that traffic would drive on the right. It is alleged that this was because Ne Win had been advised by his soothsayer, who had said 'move to the right', although this was in fact a reference to economic policy. In spite of the change, most passenger cars in the country today are RHD, being used vehicles imported from Japan. However, government limousines, imported from China are LHD.
Gibraltar
Although the British territory of Gibraltar changed to driving on the right in 1929, in order to avoid accidents involving vehicles from Spain, many public buses are RHD, with a special door allowing passengers to enter on the right hand side. However, most passenger cars are LHD, as in Spain, with the execption of used cars brought in from the UK and Japan and some vehicles used by the British forces.
Highway code
In many countries, the rules of the road are codified, setting out the legal requirements which if broken may lead to prosecution. In the United Kingdom, the rules are set out in the Highway Code, including some obligations, but also a lot of other advice on how to drive sensibly and safely. For this second set of advice, it states Although failure to comply with the other rules of the Code will not, it itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under Traffic Acts to establish liability.
External link
- Which side of the road do they drive on? Info, history and map
Source: adapted by the editor from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia under a copyleft GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) from the article "Rules of the road."
| The following table is compiled from various sources, across various languages. When English abbreviations or acronyms come from a non-English source, this is noted. | |||
| Entry | Source | Expression | Field |
RIGHT | English | Research Institute for Genetic and Human Therapy | Medicine |
Source: compiled by the editor, based on several corpora (additional references). | |||
Synonyms: RightSynonyms: correct (adj), good (adj), proper (adj), right(a) (adj), right-hand(a) (adj), ripe (adj), starboard (adj), suitable (adj), aright (adv), correctly (adv), decent (adv), decently (adv), flop (adv), in good order (adv), justly (adv), mighty (adv), powerful (adv), properly (adv), right on (adv), the right way (adv), right hand (n), right wing (n), rightfield (n), rightfulness (n), compensate (v), redress (v). (additional references) |
| Antonyms: center (adj), incorrect (adj), port (adj), improperly (adv), incorrectly (adv), left (adv), falsify (v), wrong (v). (additional references) |
| Context | Synonyms within Context (source: adapted from Roget's Thesaurus). |
Authority | Noun: authority; influence, patronage, power, preponderance, credit, prestige, prerogative, jurisdiction; right;Noun: authority; influence, patronage, power, preponderance, credit, prestige, prerogative, jurisdiction; right; (title); direction; government; a. |
Dextrality | Dextrality; right, right hand; dexter, offside, starboard. |
Dueness | Square, unexceptionable, right; equitable; due, en r |
Noun: due, dueness; right, privilege, prerogative, prescription, claim, pretension, demand, birthright. immunity, license, liberty, franchise; vested interest, vested right. | |
Probity | Adjective: upright; honest, honest as daylight; veracious; virtuous; honorable; fair, right, just, equitable, impartial, evenhanded, square; fair and aboveboard, open and aboveboard; white. |
Property | Interest, stake, estate, right, claim, demand, holding; tenure; (possession); vested interest, contingent interest, beneficial interest, equitable interest; use, trust, benefit; legal estate, equitable estate; seizin, seisin. |
Straightness | Adjective: straight; rectilinear, rectilineal; direct, even, right, true, in a line; unbent, virgate; Verb: undeviating, unturned, undistorted, unswerving; straight as an arrow; (direct); inflexible. |
Truth | Adjective: real, actual; (existing); veritable, true; right, correct; certain; substantially true, categorically true, definitively true; true to the letter, true as gospel; unimpeachable; veracious; unreconfuted, unconfuted; unideal, unimagined; realistic. |
Virtue | Adjective: virtuous, good; innocent; meritorious, deserving, worthy, desertful, correct; dutiful, duteous; moral; right, righteous, right-minded; well-intentioned, creditable, laudable, commendable, praiseworthy; above all praise, beyond all praise; excellent, admirable; sterling, pure, noble; whole-souled. |
| Source: adapted from Roget's Thesaurus. | |
| Domain | Usage | |
Screenplays | That's right, the same plants and flowers that saw you crawl from the primordial soup will reclaim the planet (Batman & Robin; writing credit: Akiva Goldsman) Both my wife and daughter think I'm this gigantic loser and they're right, I have lost something (American Beauty; writing credit: Alan Ball) And right now, here I stand because of you, Mr. Anderson (The Matrix Reloaded; writing credit: Andy Wachowski; Larry Wachowski) Mamamama has gone to Heaven, Chèrie, like that sweet lady right there (Interview with the Vampire: The Vampire Chronicles; writing credit: Anne Rice) Tell me, would you be likely to sue me if I was to beat you right now (The Sweet Hereafter; writing credit: Atom Egoyan) | |
Lyrics | I see you dancing right now (Left & Right Featuring Method Man And Redman; performing artist: D'Angelo) Yes, you're right (Do Right; performing artist: Jimmie's Chicke Shack) The right stuff (You Got It (The Right Stuff); performing artist: New Kids On The Block) It's not right ,but it's okay (It's not right,but it's okay; performing artist: Whitney Houston) Running from tha Police, that's right (Dear Mama; performing artist: 2Pac) | |
Clever | Always do right. This will gratify some people and astonish the rest. (references; author: Mark Twain) Eat Right, Exercise, Die Anyway. (references; author: unknown) Incoming fire has the right of way. (references; author: unknown) He who hesitates is probably right. (references; author: unknown) Give God what's right, not what's left! (references; author: unknown) | |
Tongue Twisters | A leaky rear latch on the listing bark lifted right up and the water rushed in. (references; author: unknown) I cannot bear to see a bear bear down upon a hare. When bare of hair he strips the hare, right there I cry, "Forbear! (references; author: unknown) It's the right light with the glimmer in the mirror. (references; author: unknown) | |
Movie/TV Titles | Right On (1972) The Price Is Right (1972) Is It Always Right to Be Right? (1970) The Right and the Wrong (1970) Right on! (1970) | |
Song Titles | All Right Now (performing artist: Free) RIGHT TIME OF THE NIGHT (performing artist: JENNIFER WARREN) The Right Kind Of Love (performing artist: Jeremy Jordan) Right Here Right Now (performing artist: Jesus Jones) Do Right (performing artist: Jimmie's Chicke Shack) | |
Source: compiled by the editor from various references; see credits. | ||
| Domain | Title | ||
References |
| ||
Books |
| ||
Periodicals |
| ||
Theater & Movies | |||
Music |
| ||
High Tech |
| ||
Consumer Goods | |||
Source: compiled by the editor from various references; see credits. | |||
| Thumbnail | Description & Credit | Thumbnail | Description & Credit |
 | Members of the first National Advisory Cancer Council at the groundbreaking ceremonies at the NCI's building 6 in June, 1938. (Left to right) Francis Wood, C.C Little, James Ewing, Arthur Compton, James Conant, Thomas Parran, and Ludwig Hektoen. This new building, erected on land donated by Mrs. Luke J. Wilson was the fourth to be constructed in the complex that is now the National Institutes of Health. The structure was unique in that year of 1939, with its physical equipment and facilities designed solely for scientific research in a specialized field of science. Building 6 was to house the National Cancer Institute, the first of the nine specialized institutes that would comprise NIH. See also ar003810. Credit: Unknown photographer/artist. |  | A. Peripheral blood leukocyte from an AIDS patient producing HIV. There are several particles budding from the periphery of the cell. Other virus particles cluster outside the cell membrane. (x30) b. Enlargement of far right center area of top photo showing mature HIV particles. (x90) c. HIV particle budding from cell membrane. (x200) d. Mature hiv particle with characteristic core. (x200). See artwork: GR-07. Credit: Matt Gonda (photographer). |
 | Here we see two infected red blood cells, (RBC), during erythrocytic schizogony. One erythrocyte containing four rings (right), and another RBC (trophozoite) also infected with maturing P. vivax, and revealing basophilic stippling (left). Credit: CDC. |  | The compound microscope on the right is used to identify mounted specimens, while the stereoscopic microscope, along with chemicals on the left is used to observe living larvae captured from the field. Credit: CDC. |
 | The colorful "zigzag" on the right is not the work of a flamboyant artist, but the signature ... Credit: NASA. |  | The image at top right shows Jovian aurora observed on February 8, 1992, by the European Space ... Credit: NASA. |
 | Color version of the right half of the Venera 13 image. Credit: NASA. |  | This image is true stereo from GOES-East and GOES-West satellites. Use red/green stereo glasses with the red lens on the right eye. The date/time for this image was 15 Sepember 1988 16:18:55 UTC. Credit: NASA. |
 | In a small corner of the vast Great Sandy Desert in Western Australia, large sand dunes -the only sand in this desert of scrub and rock- appear as lines stretching from left to right. The light-colored fan shapes are scars from wildfires. Credit: NASA. |  | Portions of Kenya and Tanzania, Africa can be seen in this image. The peak of Kilimanjaro is on the right; the mountain is flanked by the plains of Amboseli National Park to the north and the rugged Arusha National Park to the south and west. Credit: NASA. |
Source: pictures compiled by the editor from various references; see picture credits. | |||
 |  |
| "You're not right" by Keely Singer Commentary: "I couldn't resist sharing this; i told him to get "comfortable with the camera."." | "Just the right stance" by Liz Allen Commentary: "Football." |
Source: photographs selected by the editor, with permission from the photographers. | |
| Author | Quotation |
August Hare | None but a fool is always right. |
Dante Alighieri | Go right on and listen as thou goest. |
Democritus | Whatever is, is right. |
F. L. Lucan | Might was the measure of right. |
Johann Wolfgang Von Goethe | Live dangerously and you live right. |
Ralph Waldo Emerson | The soul's emphasis is always right. |
Stephen Decatur | Our country right or wrong. |
Susan B. Anthony | Suffrage is the pivotal right. |
William Godwin | God Himself has no right to be a tyrant. |
Source: compiled by the editor from various references. | |
| Author | Date | Quotation |
Magna Carta | 1215 | To no one will we sell, to no one will we refuse or delay, right or justice. (reference) |
John Locke | 1690 | He alone, it is true, is judge of the right. (Second Treatise of Government) |
US Declaration of Independence | 1776 | He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only. (reference) |
