This statement is true if we read "be wrong" in an intellectual way, as in "have false opinions" (Which is, I'm betting, precisely how it is meant). But it might well be wrong of you--"wrong" in a moral sense--not to have any opinions at all. It would be wrong of me to have no opinions at all concerning my family or its welfare, for instance. We'd say of such a guy that he is in the wrong, or that it is wrong of him, or that he is wrong to have no opinions about their welfare.
Without opinions, you can be in the wrong and you can do wrong, but you won't be wrong. So I'd say that the guy is in the wrong in having no opinions about his family's welfare, and he does wrong in that failure, but he isn't wrong. Isn't it fun what distinctions English allows us to make?
This statement is true if we read "be wrong" in an intellectual way, as in "have false opinions" (Which is, I'm betting, precisely how it is meant). But it might well be wrong of you--"wrong" in a moral sense--not to have any opinions at all. It would be wrong of me to have no opinions at all concerning my family or its welfare, for instance. We'd say of such a guy that he is in the wrong, or that it is wrong of him, or that he is wrong to have no opinions about their welfare.
ReplyDeleteWithout opinions, you can be in the wrong and you can do wrong, but you won't be wrong. So I'd say that the guy is in the wrong in having no opinions about his family's welfare, and he does wrong in that failure, but he isn't wrong. Isn't it fun what distinctions English allows us to make?
ReplyDeleteAlso, they can't break you if you don't have a spine!
ReplyDeleteYou don't need a spine to be spineless, though.
ReplyDeleteAnd you don't need an opinion to be opinionless, either!
ReplyDelete