Do Two Wrongs Make a Right?
- Thread starter Prince_James
- Start date
Cliff notes:
-I gave a definition of stealing.
-I point out the definition makes no mention of the morality about it
-point out how people generally assume it's wrong because it almost always involves a mental/physical loss.
-The nuclear bomb example you gave produces a net gain that greatly overshadows one mans loss.
-therefore, stealing in this case is right.
-I gave a definition of stealing.
-I point out the definition makes no mention of the morality about it
-point out how people generally assume it's wrong because it almost always involves a mental/physical loss.
-The nuclear bomb example you gave produces a net gain that greatly overshadows one mans loss.
-therefore, stealing in this case is right.
Ahh, but the stealing of the weapon is still a "wrong" UNTIL you've shot the man with the nuke trigger! Until you've saved the world, stealing the gun is still "wrong" in anyone's book!
Thus we're back to my original thought; two wrongs DO make a right.
Baron Max
Not until AFTER the fact! It would be the same if he were to steal the weapon, then run away from the owner. The original owner don't know nothin' about the nuke, so he calls the cops to report the theft of his gun! It's a wrong .....and it ain't a "right" until after the man his killed the nuke triggerman.
Baron Max
Well if the theft happened with the intent of saving the world, it was never wrong.
If the gun was taken with intent to do something else, then it comes down (in my hasty opinion) to the free-will debate. Should free-will not exist, then why are we talking morality? Or maybe "the end justifies the means" kind of thing.
It's rather confusing. I generally have a hard time with ethics questions because in my mind it's irrelevent and really comes down to "greater good" and making people happy by the best possible routes.
Eh.
But the victim didn't know the intent!!!!!! To him, and possibly to any witnesses, the theft of the gun was still a theft ......UNTIL.... they all saw what the thief intended to do. Then and ONLY then, can they make a determination based on "the greater good".
Absane, you're talking 'round and 'round for no other reason than to draw out the discussion and argue about it.
In my example, two wrongs did, in fact, make a right!
Well, if you want things even more confusing, then consider how one determines "the greater good" .....and even worse, who is to make that determination? We can confuse ourselves almost any time we want by bringing up such issues ....but is that what you really want to do ...confuse yourself?
Baron Max
It depends on the options you have to reply with. If someone restricts your options to the point where it's harm or be harmed, then harm the fuck out of them, and win the contest. If they give you the option not to harm them, then always avoid doing harm to people, if it's something minor, all you really have to do is prevent them from harming you.
Two wrongs = twice as wrong. The only way to be right is to prevent wrongs from being done to you in the first place. So preventing is right, and sometimes you have to harm to prevent yourself from being harmed, and other times you don't, you should use a response which protects you basically, and thats whats morally right.
You don't have to destroy a person because they stole $5 from you, or because they stepped on your shoe, or looked at you wrong, thats completely irrational. Now, if a person actually lays a hand on you, and is attacking you, then yes you do have to destroy them because they are telling you that you have to destroy them to get them to stop.
If someone just starts punching you in the face, over and over again, after the first or second point, you get the msg, you know what they are saying, they are saying that they want you to kick their ass, in fact, with their action they are begging to have their ass kicked, and it's your RIGHT, it's your RESPONSIBILITY, to kick their ass.
So yes, there is a difference between someone doing harm that is permanent damage to you, and someone doing something minor that they can repay back later, like stealing from you, or ruining your new sneakers or whatever stupid shit people fight over these days. Fights should be reserved for when someone is physically trying to do permanent damage to you, or those you care about.
No, you don't get to decide the greater good by yourself. Any action you do, has a ripple effect on everyone else, so you better be damn sure it's the greater good, as in 1000% sure, because if you are wrong, it will come back.
Stealing to save the world is an extreme example, sure it could be possible, but it does not change the response that the person you stole from will have, they'll force you to pay them back, and you might end up paying more than you stole.
So...everyone who said no.....you don't agree with with death and prison sentences? In and of itself, imprisoning somebody and taking away their freedom is WRONG. When someone commits a crime(which usually isn't half as bad as forcing them into bondage), they receive a punishment from the government. Just because the government issues the punishment, doesn't mean that alone the punishment isn't wrong. You should only respect the government as much as you are respected by it. Think of all the people who get out of prison after 20 years from DNA evidence. Is there anyone who doesn't think that they were wronged? It's no different if somebody actually commited the crime, it's still wrong by itself. The ONLY thing that justifies the government's imprisonment of individuals is the fact that they commited a crime. So, unless you're an anarchist who believes they can still survive in anarchy without two wrongs ever making a right, two wrongs have to make a right, it's the basis of all governments.
If someone were to violate another person's life or property, justice should be sought by the people or by the state. When neither attempts to resolve injustice, they are unjust. The crime is wrong and the punishment is wrong, but one or both does not make any of it right.
A day that passes can not be relived. A life ended can not be revived. No healthy medicine can make a murderer or a pedophile stop violating people.
Justice without objective discretion or depriving a person of life or property is wrong. Injustice. Justice is the ability to right that which is wrong.
Unfortunately, the ability of humanity to administer justice is imperfect. I have yet to see justice done, but I know it will never occur.
In short, my definition of justice is almost impossible.
:m:
Justice without objective discretion or depriving a person of life or property is wrong. Injustice. Justice is the ability to right that which is wrong.
Unfortunately, the ability of humanity to administer justice is imperfect. I have yet to see justice done, but I know it will never occur.
In short, my definition of justice is almost impossible.
:m:
The great is the enemy of the good. Nothing humans do is ever perfect, but we sometimes get close. This should not prevent us from doing the best we can.
Saving people may be right, but doesnt it depend on which people?
I suppose in this situation, there is no time to be precise, but I think there will always be people who just won't care, 12 million people could die all at once right in front of them and they wouldnt care.
Then theres people who might care but would be too afraid to act. So finally you have the very rare hero type people, actually these people are EXTREMELY rare. Are you saying you'd steal a gun, and shoot someone to save 12 million people who you do not know and do not care about?
Thats not true. How do you know no medicine works? We have medicines that keep people from commiting suicide, and they seem to work at least some of the time.
Freedom is earned, you are saying prison is wrong, but how many people are free? Maybe only the wealthiest.
Prison is a POSITIVE freedom. It exists to protect us from people who want to harm us. People in prison are there because they hurt people.
Hi all,
I hope all is well
I have to admit baron is kind of right here, in his first post on this subject as 2 wrongs can make a right but also 2 wrongs can also make it even more wrong depending on the situation.
however if we are lookign at maths then to negatives equal a postive!!
i suppose you have to look at the greater good for each situation.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
take care
zak
I hope all is well
I have to admit baron is kind of right here, in his first post on this subject as 2 wrongs can make a right but also 2 wrongs can also make it even more wrong depending on the situation.
however if we are lookign at maths then to negatives equal a postive!!
i suppose you have to look at the greater good for each situation.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
take care
zak
Killing someone who is threatening to kill you is not wrong, because you're only doing to him what he is doing to you. However if the world is about to end and the only way to save it is to kill one (particular) innocent person, I wouldn't do it.
Last edited: