thomas, hail 1. that is to take the whole person and their entire life/lives and call them unjust upon a given action or set of actions. it is not to look at the causes of such actions. 2. it is to not give them the chance to change. 3. it is to blame the born innocent individual for the environment. . everyone is neither right nor wrong, they are comparative positions. the truth is naked it cannot be extrapolated from itself and given to a second party, it is in doing so that we divide our paths. this is the essence of why there are so many versions of ‘the truth’. the thread meaning is also concerned with the ‘effect’ of both truth [even if so], self righteousness and demonisation ~ the duality of. The same with scientific theory ... else it would never have moved on. so the truth moves on ~ it didn’t stay in the time of jesus? science is a way of describing the describable yet it to remain only partially as the truth. it is a good example of why truth changes but never settles. they can be right on the holistic level or in a vague description, yet the further we look the more we find other truths, then ultimately we find there are no absolute truths ~ because nothing can be observed to the absolute. in this ‘truth’ about the universe can we not see something of its ultimate wisdom. ...and in monotheistic terms the wisdom of god? indeed! yet no order of absolute or ultimate truth, if for no other reason than it is to fine/subtle/profound.simple to be described by words or symbols nor idols. i disagree, there is no originator! it has to be extracted from its source or as is usual it follows a train of thoughts and ideas all of which are equally vague references to a given exponation of truth. ok let us do an experiment; say an idea that is true [or that is not true]. ideas are by nature non specific pertaining only to examples of the given which itself is tangental to itf primary source. the whole thing goes around in a kind of circle. it is a philosophical notion explaining why that is so, it isn’t ‘the truth’ or gods truth nor an empirical truth. here i am talking about self righteousness as we all ordinarily know it, it is not the knowing of truth but the belief and the ego of that which causes problems. would christ believe in religious wars? no because it is wrong to kill, thus people who give reason for such things or demonise others for being different are being self rightious ...not righteous! good point. another good point. i wouldn’t say it is worse, i would say it suffers the same flaw as posited by the meaning of the thread title. if they don’t then they are wrong, if we examined their reasoning i am sure we could show as to why. examples for the uneducated? [happily so ] i don’t know to be honest, i also don’t think we can categorise things so? i get this kind of thing on philosophy forums, they are always sticking labels on everything. thank you thomas for an informative and intersting reply.