On a question, multiple perspectives, and rationality

 Is Kim Jong Un right about anything?

This question might seem absurd, especially to large swaths of the political-ideological spectrum; given that he is a bloodthirsty and cruel dictator, one would expect him to be—conclusively—completely misguided regarding his beliefs, values, and life path. A rational analysis* of his moral standing inevitably leans toward a harsh judgment based on his conduct throughout his life. Yet, even if it isn't necessarily relevant to know *what* he is right about—whether in moral or factual terms—it is relevant to know that he *is* right about at least *something*. Because every human being is, even the cruelest or most insane among us. Even someone delirious in the street, in the grip of uncontrolled psychosis, or someone with a macabre track record of millions of indirect deaths—as is often the case with a cruel dictator. It remains rational to understand that even a truly ruthless individual, like the one in the example, will be right about something. It is possible to hold a definitive perspective on a specific individual, group, or ideology while simultaneously embracing other perspectives—such as the universal human insight that any member of our species who is even minimally cognitively functional, no matter how evil or insane, is still right about something. Or even the effort to examine in detail exactly what those correct points might be.

And this applies to groups or ideologies as well...

This is the difference between constantly seeking a definitive, binary perspective and seeking to broaden the range of perspectives on everything—without that addition nullifying or diminishing the importance of those views that are most relevant or significant to our judgment.

In short: even if Kim Jong Un might be right about something, he remains a villain with a great deal of blood on his hands. Or consider this: even if North Korea's dominant ideology is unequivocally despicable, there may still be—or indeed are—sensible aspects to it; for instance, the emphasis on the collective over the individual—the opposite of what currently prevails in the Western world... Yet, even in this regard, it is fair to note that this is positive only in a primary sense, since the collectivism typical of a totalitarian society like that one entails the individual's total submission to the collective... Thus, even a specific aspect or angle regarding a given ideology, society, or individual can harbor greater complexity or qualitative variation.

* Morality, viewed through a more objective lens, can be defined as everything categorized as "right," "negotiable," or "wrong"—primarily based on the needs of the specific individual or group. From a more universal perspective, however, it can be defined as whatever is essential or inevitable for an individual or group to practice in order to ensure their own survival. This definition excludes cases of organic or mental dysfunction where this logical rule is consistently violated—such as in antisocial personality disorder, where right and wrong are determined not by reasoned judgment but by its absence, leading to extreme or gratuitous cruelty driven by a sadistic desire to act in such a manner...

A highly relevant example with immense influence on the modern world is Nazism—and the typically extremist, binary criticism leveled against it and the various topics associated with it...

Is it always wrong? Everything it stood for, or everything it preached?

Loving one's own race or ethnicity—something it advocated—is not wrong. Emphasizing "good morals"—especially those that are objectively sound, such as a stable family structure—is not entirely wrong either. Even regarding certain beliefs of a more political and contextual nature—such as hatred toward the Jewish people—the error lay far more in overgeneralization than in being completely wrong (as the vast majority of "anti-Nazis" claim), as if centuries of persecution against this group lacked any logical basis rooted in their actions—particularly those of their political-economic "elites." And this need not lead to an extremist or binary conclusion—such as "if the Nazis weren't entirely wrong about the Jews, then they were entirely right"...

The multiple-perspective method—characteristic of a more rational approach—is essentially about learning to detect and understand nuances; this is precisely what is most lacking when, in a debate, X claims that XX is (completely) right and Y claims that it is (completely) wrong... It becomes yet another futile discussion that leads nowhere—or, if it does lead somewhere, it is to a place of ignorance and distortion rather than enlightenment.

We do not have to hate an entire people, but neither..we ought to worship it uncritically, especially if there is no reason to do so.

We do not have to hate our own race or ethnicity, nor hate other races or ethnicities. But neither do we have to embrace positive or negative extremes regarding our own or those of others.

If I choose X, it does not mean I must totally exclude Y.

It is possible to conclude that Kim Jong Un or Adolf Hitler are right about something—as every human being is—without that implying we worship them, even though we ought to detest them. And the same can be said of any ideology...

For what affects us most negatively, even today, is precisely these binary extremes masquerading as "normalcies," ​​taking turns in power and vying for territory, rather than being identified for what they are: indisputable manifestations of applied irrationality...