The Concept Problem, Part I: The Rule of Agreement

Ok this is the second major post, and I am kind of annoyed that i posted the introductory thing last week because the whole idea is actually a lot simpler than I first anticipated, only taking up a page and a half on Word, with much of it already mentioned in the introduction and the comments. Anyway, I press on...
(Also, I cutting the once-a-week thing for just when I feel like it, so blogs may be more frequent from here on)

Obligatory Notice: I do not mean in any way to offend anyone who has conflicting opinions or ideals, I am merely stating possible theories, which I may not necessarily believe in. I also greatly appreciate constructive criticisms and arguments against the points I make, however, I do not wish to have people slandering my opinions with comments/arguments that are unfounded (excluding religious arguments, although whether they are unfounded or not is debatable), and nonsensical (unless, course, your talking about illogicality, which is naturally nonsensical)

Foundations

In our world, there are several societies and cultures, with differences between them ranging from slight to extreme. However, one thing that is common in all societies, and all cultures, are foundations: set standards and beliefs shared by near the entirety of that society as the ‘correct’ way of thinking and acting; certain convictions that both the individual and the collective holds dear and true to them from birth till death. However, since all societies differ in ways of thinking, the supposed ‘right’ and ‘wrongs’ within such societies will naturally differ. So, does this mean that there are no ‘rights’ and ‘wrongs’, or that a singular belief of a single society overrides the singular contradictory belief that other societies might share as their norm?

Contradiction, Indifference and Agreement

The definition of ‘right’ is that that is “correct, just and true”, and conversely, the definition of ‘wrong’ being “incorrect or untrue”
With these foundations having the ability to contradict each other, and with the concepts of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ being simple creations of humankind’s mind, it cannot truly be possible for a true ‘right’, nor a true ‘wrong’, to logically exist. Instead, rights and wrongs are simply based on majority belief, and we use these to define our social norms. Using this ‘rule of agreement’, a better description of right or wrong would be:

Right: ‘what the surrounding majority would believe to be the correct action to the corresponding situation’
Wrong: ‘what the surrounding majority would believe to be the incorrect action to the corresponding situation’

And as you can, like everything in life, the ‘rights’ and the ‘wrongs’ are based on pure belief. Of course, what I have stated over the past two paragraphs should be nothing new, as an average open-minded person would be able to see this with ease. However, what people don’t consider is the next step, applications.

Application of the ‘Rule of Agreement’

‘Right’ and ‘wrong’ are concepts, and as have been shown, are subject to the rule of agreement, in which people over-estimate their beliefs as the only possible correct way of thinking, if only unconsciously. However, the very reason that these are subject is because they are concepts themselves, two opposing concepts that work in equilibrium and balance the world into a black-and-white perspective, so-to-speak, one that is easy to understand and follow. As such, shouldn’t other opposing concepts also be subject to this rule? Right and Wrong, True and Untrue, Good and Bad, and even, with great regret, Moral and Immoral, all suffer from this Rule of Agreement, as splitting a world into opposing concepts will not change the fact that the world originally had no concepts to begin with. There are no rights or wrongs, no truths or untruths, no good, no bad, no morals or immorals, only belief. The very basis of our life and existence, or any reason or purpose, is ultimately undermined and eliminated, through complete, unwavering indifference.

Conclusion

This rule of agreement undermines our very system of living, through pure logic it can defy the idea of logic (N.B. ironic, huh?), and show that there is little more than pure unfiltered indifference in existence. However, even if we have the knowledge of this, do we have the understanding? Knowing that indifference is the ultimate, and that anything we believe for sure is subject to almost certain doubt and disagreement, does not mean that we would be able to live our lives with this in mind*. Being able to know this in full extent, and base ones life around such a philosophy, is ridiculous, nay, impossible, for a living being’s intellect to be able to comprehend, and resultantly act upon. Our very life, our existence, is founded on our beliefs, and if these are the only things we can trust with total surety, then we are forced to live by them, regardless or irregardless of the almost certain conflict and doubt imposed by others, or whether we want to or not.

*Just because what is able to understand the cause, does not mean one is able to understand the outcome.

Ok that's it for today, and please feel free to try and shoot me down and criticise me I need a little debate. Also, next time I'll cover the second part of the concept problem, entitled 'The Concept Problem Part II: The Rule of Indifference/The difference between 1 and 10 is zero' (haven't settled on name yet, but I'm guessing you get the gist of it)