• Do two wrongs make a right?
    232 replies, posted
Pretty much what the title says. I believe two wrongs almost always make a right. Here's some examples: 1. So one time I was being called "fatass" in a gym class. I tried to ignore it and even told the person to stop. A few days later after I had finally gotten tired of it, I told him to call me it again. Naturally, he did. Hence, I beat him up. A lot of you might think, "I bet that didn't solve anything". Problem is, it did. I got suspended for the rest of the day and he got suspended for five days. The name-calling stopped. Hell, he even wanted to be my friend (fucking weird, I know). So with the logic, "two wrongs don't make a right", I suppose what I did was wrong? I don't see how. If the name-calling stopped, it should be considered a right if anything. Had I had not done what I did, this would've continued and it wouldn't have suprised me if I kept on getting picked on in high school. 2. I guess people who say two wrongs don't make a right also think murderers shouldn't go to prison. For example, if Man A killed Man B and Man A went to prison for the rest of his life, you're still condemning Man A to a life of what some might call hell. You're still comitting a wrong act for sending Man A to prison. But doesn't Man A kind of deserve it for what he did to Man B? Yes, he does. The previous example works the same way. I'd like to know what you guys think about this.
Three rights make a left. [highlight](User was banned for this post ("This is not debating." - Megafan))[/highlight]
Just because two negatives make a positive doesn't mean that two wrongs will always make a right.
No, a bad deed never justifies another. None of the examples you gave are bad. Example 1- You're not wrong in defending yourself, psychological harm is still a way of doing damage, you just stood your ground, and everyone who tells you otherwise is probably not thinking right. Every man has the rights to defending himself should they feel like it. Example 2- A person that doesn't know how to live in society should be taken away from it, as to protect people. Now, the problem is in the system that doesn't work on these people as in to make em' ready to go back to society, instead, they just throw them inside a place where they learn how to be better criminals.
the answer to this debate would only be defined by your ability to constitute what is objectively '[i]wrong[/i]'
[QUOTE=Bobie;36636139]the answer to this debate would only be defined by your ability to constitute what is objectively '[i]wrong[/i]'[/QUOTE] pretty much this but I'll try a simple example using killing as a pretty much universal example of something that's considered wrong if a man kills your dog, so you kill his dog, does that make it right?
"Aw man, I killed one guy.. better kill another to make up for it." This proverb doesn't mean that. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_wrongs_make_a_right[/url]
[QUOTE=Errorproxy;36636693]"Aw man, I killed one guy.. better kill another to make up for it." This proverb doesn't mean that. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_wrongs_make_a_right[/url][/QUOTE] actually according to your link that's exactly what that means [quote]when it is assumed that if one wrong is committed, another wrong will cancel it out.[/quote]
[QUOTE=JohnnyOnFlame;36636130]No, a bad deed never justifies another. None of the examples you gave are bad. Example 1- You're not wrong in defending yourself, psychological harm is still a way of doing damage, you just stood your ground, and everyone who tells you otherwise is probably not thinking right. Every man has the rights to defending himself should they feel like it. Example 2- A person that doesn't know how to live in society should be taken away from it, as to protect people. Now, the problem is in the system that doesn't work on these people as in to make em' ready to go back to society, instead, they just throw them inside a place where they learn how to be better criminals.[/QUOTE] Some may consider them wrong. I guess one's interpretation of what is wrong will be different from another's. Should've thought about that. [editline]5th July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=KaIibos;36636615]pretty much this but I'll try a simple example using killing as a pretty much universal example of something that's considered wrong if a man kills your dog, so you kill his dog, does that make it right?[/QUOTE] I would say no because the dogs had nothing to do with it. If Man A kills Man B's dog, Man B should do something that won't harm anything else in the process. It's only wrong when you decide to hurt others to hurt the person that hurt you.
Hell no. Kill someone = Wrong. Raping the corpse = Wrong. Point out one thing RIGHT about any of that.
In most justice systems they do! Justice is just another word for petty revenge.
[QUOTE=Hellborg 65;36637148]Hell no. Kill someone = Wrong. Raping the corpse = Wrong. Point out one thing RIGHT about any of that.[/QUOTE] True. But I was talking moreso about the kind of stuff posted above. I guess the subject is very vague.
[QUOTE=deaded38;36637639]True. But I was talking moreso about the kind of stuff posted above. I guess the subject is very vague.[/QUOTE] Two wrongs never make a right, but it's not a binary issue, what was posted in the op is an example of something that is neither strictly right or wrong.
[QUOTE=deaded38;36636925]Some may consider them wrong. I guess one's interpretation of what is wrong will be different from another's. Should've thought about that. [editline]5th July 2012[/editline] I would say no because the dogs had nothing to do with it. If Man A kills Man B's dog, Man B should do something that won't harm anything else in the process. It's only wrong when you decide to hurt others to hurt the person that hurt you.[/QUOTE] what's an example of something that's wrong but doesn't hurt anybody?
[QUOTE=KaIibos;36636729]actually according to your link that's exactly what that means[/QUOTE] another wrong from another person. Because he did this, I get to do this. That's what it means.
If you think of this from a mathematical view, if you multiply to negatives (wrongs) you get a possitive, if you use multiply positive (good) act it will ultimately create a possitive. The problem come when a negative act is followed but a possitive or visa Vera it will have a negative outcome. So from this I say that it does create a right, as long as the second wrong is the correct wrong, and not making it worse. But obviously and wrong will do damage along the way.
I think that if you do something bad and then do something else bad to make the overall situation better it doesn't change the fact that the initial bad thing happened.
it doesn't necessarily make a wrong, but it often does make a hypocrite and it bares a double-standard equally often. it really depends on whether your idea of "wrong" is influenced more by the ethical side of something or by the objective facts. if the latter, then two wrongs can make a right, but in all other instances it makes a wrong.
the sweet taste of revenge sure feels right
no writes can make a rong [highlight](User was banned for this post ("This is not debating." - Megafan))[/highlight]
[QUOTE=Arc Nova;36717014]the sweet taste of revenge sure feels right[/QUOTE] It depends though. There's an old story about a man who's entire family was killed. He went home, opened the door, and saw the mess of what they left behind. His wife and kids murdered brutally by savage criminals. The man, despite moral confusion and depression, goes out to get revenge and kill his family's killers. He does so. In the end, he felt like nothing was accomplished. He couldn't get his family back. Were the bastards that murdered his family rightfully deprived of their lives? Sure, but he didn't change anything. What good happened? He continued being depressed, drank his life away, and finally committed suicide. So, maybe he was [i]right[/i]. But he didn't fix anything. Actually made things even worse; why take the chances? Like I said it just depends. Defending yourself and committing another wrong against someone who's wronged you are totally different. If you throw a fist, I'll throw a fist back. Shoot at me, I'm shooting back. But if I get jumped by some thugs, seeing as I'm outnumbered and get my ass beat - why would I waste the time to round up my crew and jump them back? It's done and over. I really didn't have much to lose, maybe thirty bucks but hey.
[QUOTE=deaded38;36635928]Pretty much what the title says. I believe two wrongs almost always make a right. Here's some examples: 1. So one time I was being called "fatass" in a gym class. I tried to ignore it and even told the person to stop. A few days later after I had finally gotten tired of it, I told him to call me it again. Naturally, he did. Hence, I beat him up. A lot of you might think, "I bet that didn't solve anything". Problem is, it did. I got suspended for the rest of the day and he got suspended for five days. The name-calling stopped. Hell, he even wanted to be my friend (fucking weird, I know). So with the logic, "two wrongs don't make a right", I suppose what I did was wrong? I don't see how. If the name-calling stopped, it should be considered a right if anything. Had I had not done what I did, this would've continued and it wouldn't have suprised me if I kept on getting picked on in high school. 2. I guess people who say two wrongs don't make a right also think murderers shouldn't go to prison. For example, if Man A killed Man B and Man A went to prison for the rest of his life, you're still condemning Man A to a life of what some might call hell. You're still comitting a wrong act for sending Man A to prison. But doesn't Man A kind of deserve it for what he did to Man B? Yes, he does. The previous example works the same way. I'd like to know what you guys think about this.[/QUOTE] Dude I think you're taking a casual saying that mothers say to calm their children down when they're in the middle of a sibling rivalry or something to the extreme. Chill. I think every situation needs to be categorized and analysed separately. Considering wrong and right change based on context. Trying to argue "two wrongs make a right" by itself is a hilariously abstract topic and a futile effort.
Well, it seems deeply engraved in human psychology that revenge is a pretty popular subject. It's been around for years, in many parts of the world, ranging from Scotland "None shall provoke me with impunity", and Japan's honour system that involves revenge killings, which are called katakiuchi, and all the way back to Hammurabi's code, "an eye for an eye." In a sense it is like you're being invaded, and the best and most convenient course of action is of course to return the favour, it's basic human nature. You could say 'two wrongs don't make a right' is morally wrong, but it is basic human nature that is actively working against the reverse. My opinion is that I could be on the moral high ground and say that two wrongs don't make a right, but my basic, human instinct, that is incredibly hard to repress, says otherwise.
I'd say killing is never acceptable, so if we're talking revenge here i could agree that a certain degree of revenge is acceptable, like hitting someone back. But to kill someone in an act of revenge is too much. "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." - Mahatma Gandhi
[QUOTE=Toyhobo;36750146]I'd say killing is never acceptable, so if we're talking revenge here i could agree that a certain degree of revenge is acceptable, like hitting someone back. But to kill someone in an act of revenge is too much. "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." - Mahatma Gandhi[/QUOTE] So you condone revenge to a degree, but the problem is that you believe that it should stop at 'hitting someone back', but 'killing someone is too much'. You can see a serious problem here, everyone has different beliefs and values, someone might think 'hitting someone back' is too much, whereas others wouldn't bat an eyelid to murder someone's family.
There is no wrong and no right.
Well, in most cases hitting someone back in a fight won't get them killed or severely hurt whereas stabbing someone or actually trying to kill them for something is taking something way too far. I kind of understand the feeling that you might want to kill someone that shot your mother/sister/brother or whoever or whatever you hold dear, as I my self have had the urge to strike back or in some cases i even wanted to kill a guy in my class. But the thing is when something is outside a certain limit of what have been done you might need to end it without hitting back by simply walking away and deal with it by yourself psychological.
[QUOTE=Toyhobo;36752769]Well, in most cases hitting someone back in a fight won't get them killed or severely hurt whereas stabbing someone or actually trying to kill them for something is taking something way too far. I kind of understand the feeling that you might want to kill someone that shot your mother/sister/brother or whoever or whatever you hold dear, as I my self have had the urge to strike back or in some cases i even wanted to kill a guy in my class. But the thing is when something is outside a certain limit of what have been done you might need to end it without hitting back by simply walking away and deal with it by yourself psychological.[/QUOTE] I disagree. If someone kills my mother, I'm gonna kill them back. I might try to take the 'good' route and just let the authorities do their thing, but where do you go when that doesn't work? This all assumes I know who the killer is, but evidence was lacking or some random phony court bullshit occured and the killer gets to go free.
[QUOTE=Samiam22;36751599]So you condone revenge to a degree, but the problem is that you believe that it should stop at 'hitting someone back', but 'killing someone is too much'. You can see a serious problem here, everyone has different beliefs and values, someone might think 'hitting someone back' is too much, whereas others wouldn't bat an eyelid to murder someone's family.[/QUOTE] I would say that the difference between hitting somebody back and killing somebody is that hitting somebody back is self defense (unless it wasn't called on). Killing somebody in revenge isn't going to defend or solve your issues. Just because revenge is basic human nature doesn't make it correct. Not all evolutionary steps serve a purpose, after all. [editline]15th July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=deaded38;36764317]I disagree. If someone kills my mother, I'm gonna kill them back. I might try to take the 'good' route and just let the authorities do their thing, but where do you go when that doesn't work? This all assumes I know who the killer is, but evidence was lacking or some random phony court bullshit occured and the killer gets to go free.[/QUOTE] Does killing the person who killed your mother bring her back? I've never had a family member killed by another being, but I don't believe taking a person's life because they took one of your loved one's is justified. It won't do society any more good than harm. The best bet would be to rehabilitate them.
[QUOTE=deaded38;36635928]Pretty much what the title says. I believe two wrongs almost always make a right. Here's some examples: 1. So one time I was being called "fatass" in a gym class. I tried to ignore it and even told the person to stop. A few days later after I had finally gotten tired of it, I told him to call me it again. Naturally, he did. Hence, I beat him up. A lot of you might think, "I bet that didn't solve anything". Problem is, it did. I got suspended for the rest of the day and he got suspended for five days. The name-calling stopped. Hell, he even wanted to be my friend (fucking weird, I know). So with the logic, "two wrongs don't make a right", I suppose what I did was wrong? I don't see how. If the name-calling stopped, it should be considered a right if anything. Had I had not done what I did, this would've continued and it wouldn't have suprised me if I kept on getting picked on in high school. 2. I guess people who say two wrongs don't make a right also think murderers shouldn't go to prison. For example, if Man A killed Man B and Man A went to prison for the rest of his life, you're still condemning Man A to a life of what some might call hell. You're still comitting a wrong act for sending Man A to prison. But doesn't Man A kind of deserve it for what he did to Man B? Yes, he does. The previous example works the same way. I'd like to know what you guys think about this.[/QUOTE] He wanted to be your friend because you showed dominance over him. This whole debate has been going on since the moment we first became sentient. "An eye for an eye" and so on. It's one reason (among others) why people disagree with the death penalty, and why some are for it. You can't really answer this since it's based on morals, and morals change with everyone.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.