Do Two Wrongs Make a Right?

[Baron Max]

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 a one (particular) innocent person, I wouldn't do it.

How odd and strange! Those two sentences are completely contradictory! Are you sure that you don't want to rethink or restate what you're thinking?

However if the world is about to end and the only way to save it is to kill a one (particular) innocent person, I wouldn't do it.

What if that person were trying to kill your mother or your child? You'd just stand there and let it happen? ....without lifting a finger to save them?

I think you're talking in psycho-babble instead of using reality. I.e., you just want to talk in philosophical terms, devoid of any personal attachment to reality. It's easy to say things, but much more difficult to face things in the real world.

Baron Max

 

[Nickelodeon]

(2 wrongs + 3 rights / 4 ) = 1 right

 

[Rosnet]

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.

How odd and strange! Those two sentences are completely contradictory! Are you sure that you don't want to rethink or restate what you're thinking?



What if that person were trying to kill your mother or your child? You'd just stand there and let it happen? ....without lifting a finger to save them?

I think you're talking in psycho-babble instead of using reality. I.e., you just want to talk in philosophical terms, devoid of any personal attachment to reality. It's easy to say things, but much more difficult to face things in the real world.

Baron Max

Please pay attention next time...

 

[Baron Max]

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.

Interesting. What you're saying, in effect, is that you'd willingly be the cause of killing billions of people by your inaction, but you wouldn't kill a single individual, even if innocent, to save those billions?

By NOT acting, you'd cause the death of billions? And you think that would be right and just and all that psycho-babble horseshit?

Baron Max

 

[Rosnet]

I'm not obliged to save anyone...

Oh and I said, <I>save</I>. Which is not the same as not taking a life. That person's life does not belong to me. Neither does anyone else's, but I don't have to save anything that does not belong to me (or anything that does belong to me either, for that matter).

 

[Rosnet]

Of course I will cease to exist when the world ends. But what is the alternative? I live after having killed an innocent person. I don't want to live like that. And there is no purpose in killing that person, then killing myself, then letting everyone else enjoy the undestroyed world. No matter how much I've thought about it, I can't make myself think of doing anything for after my death.

Added to all this, in an actual case, there will always be the hope (even if the slightest one) of thinking out some other way. Which will at least keep me engaged for the rest of the time even if it doesn't bring any good result. Just mentioning it, it's not really related to this very much. This is a hypothetical situation after all...

 

[Baron Max]

I live after having killed an innocent person. I don't want to live like that.

So you'd stand by and let someone assault, rape and murder your wife/mother, your children, your friend .....just because of some silly psycho-babble beliefs?

Baron Max

 

[Rosnet]

What the heck is wrong with you??? Aren't you reading? I said <I><B><U>INNOCENT</U></B></I> person!!! I wouldn't kill (hurt) an <I><B><U>INNOCENT</U></B></I> person! I already said that I would definitely kill (or stop in some other way, if practically possible) anyone who was threating meor anyone else (with physical violence).

 

[Baron Max]

Let's try it again. Below is what you said:

“ Originally Posted by Rosnet
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. ”

Then I replied and posed the question:

Interesting. What you're saying, in effect, is that you'd willingly be the cause of killing billions of people by your inaction, but you wouldn't kill a single individual, even if innocent, to save those billions?

By NOT acting, you'd cause the death of billions? And you think that would be right and just and all that psycho-babble horseshit?

Baron Max

 

[MetaKron]

No two wrongs do not make a right, what the second wrong does is make you feel better, it has an emotional reward, nothing more.

I am not against the second wrong depending on circumstances.

A lot of times the "second wrong" is in self defense. Bullies tend to leave a person alone en masse if that person beats up the right one, the right way, at the right time. No guarantees, but I had over a year of blissful peace after I did that. The wrongs may not have added up to a right, but the last one did stop the abuse.

 

[Roman]

What the heck is wrong with you??? Aren't you reading? I said <I><B><U>INNOCENT</U></B></I> person!!! I wouldn't kill (hurt) an <I><B><U>INNOCENT</U></B></I> person! I already said that I would definitely kill (or stop in some other way, if practically possible) anyone who was threating meor anyone else (with physical violence).

Would it be ok for me to kill you because by refusing to kill the <I><B><U>INNOCENT</U></B></I> person, you're threatening my life?

 

[Baron Max]

Would it be ok for me to kill you because by refusing to kill the <I><B><U>INNOCENT</U></B></I> person, you're threatening my life?

Huh??

Baron Max

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

A lot of times the "second wrong" is in self defense. Bullies tend to leave a person alone en masse if that person beats up the right one, the right way, at the right time. No guarantees, but I had over a year of blissful peace after I did that. The wrongs may not have added up to a right, but the last one did stop the abuse.

'ends justifying the means' wasn't the question though was it?

 

[Hapsburg]

"wrong" is the opposite of "right".
"right" is the opposite of "left"
Two left turns points down...
...however, three lefts make a right.
Thus, 3 "wrongs" make a "right".


Seriously, though, it's all circumstantial. Much like everything else.

 

[Oniw17]

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.

It's not at all "uncomfortable" for the prisoners? What about drug dealers? Did they really do something that was bad enough to get their freedom taken from them? Is selling drugs something that should be punished by slavery? And BTW, did you even read my post? When someone is proven innocent 24 years after being convicted by DNA evidence, do we say that that's right? No, because imprisoning someone is wrong by itself. It's the wrong in the first place that makes it right, for preventative reasons. If they just had random dtrawings to put people in prison, nobody would call that right.

Interesting. What you're saying, in effect, is that you'd willingly be the cause of killing billions of people by your inaction, but you wouldn't kill a single individual, even if innocent, to save those billions?

By NOT acting, you'd cause the death of billions? And you think that would be right and just and all that psycho-babble horseshit?

But if you were to act, you'd be guilty of killing somebody who wasn't in any danger in the begining, so then you become responsible for that life, but you're not responsible for all those other people. Yes it would be right to kill billions for the sake of one person, if that's what would have happened if you didn't get involve. Also, if the person who you're killing is innocent, how's it going to affect whether all those people will die.

So you'd stand by and let someone assault, rape and murder your wife/mother, your children, your friend .....just because of some silly psycho-babble beliefs?

Your spouse/mother/children/friends are different than billions of nameless people. If they were being assaulted/raped/murdered, how would the other person be inocent?

 

[Baron Max]

What about drug dealers? Did they really do something that was bad enough to get their freedom taken from them?

Well, for one thing, dealing drugs is against the law! If you wish to change those laws, please feel free to begin the attempt.

But until those laws are changed, surely you don't advocate that people take the law into their own hands and do whatever they want, do you?

Yes it would be right to kill billions for the sake of one person, if that's what would have happened if you didn't get involve.

Interesting. Killing one innocent person is wrong ...yet allowing billions of innocent people to die is okay? Hmm?

Your spouse/mother/children/friends are different than billions of nameless people.

So ....what ye're saying is that your ideals ain't really so ideal, huh?

Baron Max

 

[Oniw17]

Well, for one thing, dealing drugs is against the law! If you wish to change those laws, please feel free to begin the attempt.

You don't understand my point. If you didn't do anything, and you end up in prison, that's wrong. If you rape my sister and then end up in prson, then two wrongs make a right.

But until those laws are changed, surely you don't advocate that people take the law into their own hands and do whatever they want, do you?

Why not?

Interesting. Killing one innocent person is wrong ...yet allowing billions of innocent people to die is okay? Hmm?

That one person wouldn't have died if you weren't there, the billions would have.

So ....what ye're saying is that your ideals ain't really so ideal, huh?

Why do you say that? My ideals are perfect.