Pretty much any issue where there is a close divide and that divide is not simply the informed vs. the ignorant.
Abortion, the role of government, engagement vs. isolationism, Democrat vs. Republican…
No…the abortion issue fails massively. One side or the other is absolutely dead fucking wrong.
We just don’t agree on which side that is.
I’m not sure I do. I live in the north. We might have a nicer nation now without the south. like Canada. 
And slavery had become much less economically viable. It was on its way out.
I’m trying to remember whether we’ve had an SDMB thread wondering what would’ve happened if, a year and change into the Revolutionary War, the crown had issued an Emancipation Proclamation for all the slaves in any rebelling areas three or so months from now. Tick-tock, gentlemen. Tick-tock.
But I don’t want to hijack this thread over that, so lemme switch gears to Seinfeld; f’rinstance, the episode where Joe Mayo hits folks up for a favor when they show up for his party: George is asked to stay by the phone in case anybody calls and needs directions, and Puddy – can you make sure no one puts a drink on my sound system? Elaine gets tasked with coats, including her boyfriend’s fur coat, which she hates; cue one fur coat getting chucked out the apartment window.
“So now Joe Mayo wants me to buy him a new coat.”
“Because you threw it out.”
“No, because I was in charge of the coats. It’s insane.”
“But you did actually throw his coat out the window.”
“But he doesn’t know that. As far as he knows, somebody stole it, and that’s the person who should be responsible.”
“But that’s you!”
I think we can restrict this to disputes where both sides are *morally *right. As has been pointed out, Pepsi vs. Coke is subjective with no right or wrong.
But if I’m not mistaken, many people argue that Israel’s very existence is because of an unjust seizure of land.
Oh. I was going to suggest the Designated Hitter, but there is zero moral defense for such a thing. 
You had me until the last one.
In all honesty, I think most disputes consist of two sides wherein each side is right about some portion of what it understands. And although usually one (and sometimes both) are also quite wrong about some of what they understand, there are several situations where the main problem is not the stuff that they understand that ain’t actually so, but rather the additional stuff that they simply don’t comprehend at all.
I’d say there are many more instances where both sides are wrong.
Gun control is the best example. I believe everyone has the right to defend themselves from violence. On the other hand, the NRA has taken this to an obscene extreme, and transformed that right into something that transcends all other rights. Even the Sandy Hook tragedy couldn’t put a dent in their attitude.
I read that as Designated Hitler, and wasn’t entirely sure what point you were trying to make.
Well, yes. That’s why I wanted to ask about both sides being right - such instances seem much harder to find.
There was no one reason why everybody supported the CSA. Some fought to preserve slavery, and those people were wrong. Some fought because they felt their homelands were being invaded, and those people were right.
Lots of young guys fought because it was the masculine thing to do, it was expected of them, they were bored, etc. Seems more morally ambivalent to me.
After the riots in Ferguson, and now Baltimore, I’ve seen people argue that riots are simply a disenfranchised group’s means of expressing its anger and frustration. I’ve seen others argue that it’s a counterproductive event that hurts the community that is already disadvantaged. I think both arguments are at least partly right.
Leibniz and Newton?
It’s actually very easy and not at all a complicated question. Most issues have multiple areas of consideration, legitimate pros and cons. Where you fall on the issue will tend to depend on what your priorities are, and no one can say what priority is more important than another priority. So the answer to whether you should support A or B has no right or wrong answer. This applies to nearly all issues of public debate.
This may be a little too niche for most posters to grok what I’m talking about, but I’ll try, because it’s one of the few conflicts I’ve run into where everyone on both sides is exactly right.
Pagan rituals (“church”) at clothing optional festivals. Some people have a profound and fundamental religious belief that they must be nude (“skyclad”) as a part of their worship. Some people are very disturbed (“triggered”) by nudity, often because of previous sexual abuse. Group rituals present a big problem. How do we negotiate between someone’s sincere belief that they must be nude, and someone else’s sincere need to not be up close and personal with a nude person? Both people have a right and a need to be there in that same space, at the same time, in a way that feels safe to them. Tell everyone they have to keep their clothes on, and you’re harming those who practice skyclad. Tell everyone they have to get over nudity and be okay with it, and you’re harming those with PTSD triggered by nudity. There’s no room for compromise.
I’ve literally resorted to flipping a coin, if one person or the other doesn’t decide to skip the ritual. (And either way, prepare for the outrage and public outcry to begin, because you’re not being inclusive and creating a ritual space that’s safe and welcoming to everyone. It’s crazymaking.)
From a legal standpoint it seems to me the nudists have it. Religious practice is protected by the Constitution. The Constitution does not require us to make special allowances for people who have been traumatized in the past. The TSA certainly makes no such allowances.
Toplessness for females is legal in many jurisdictions. I don’t think it should be illegal just because it deeply bothers some people.
But I do agree that as a general principle, you have a good example. Both sides are actually right. But I did think it appropriate to point out that our culture and legal system set some priorities, one of those being that religious or other expression trumps people’s feelings.