Do two wrongs make a right?
 

Do two wrongs make a right?

Re: Do two wrongs make a right?
 

Depends on what definition of "evil" you use...

I mean war and killing someone can be considered "evil" because human life is lost. Or civilian casualties as sometimes a unavoidable part of war.

So you really have to define what "evil" you are talking about.

-Gryph

Re: Do two wrongs make a right?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Depends on what definition of "evil" you use...

I mean war and killing someone can be considered "evil" because human life is lost. Or civilian casualties as sometimes a unavoidable part of war.

So you really have to define what "evil" you are talking about.

[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't a specific question. Can you find a sequence of evil actions that add up to a good result? I mean overall, not just one isolated good outcome, but the totality of changes made to whatever starting condition you had.

Re: Do two wrongs make a right?
 

There is no way to peace, peace is the way.

Re: Do two wrongs make a right?
 

OK, so the followup question. It seems that most agree that evil is not *required* to do good (I'd like to hear what the two people who said evil *is* required are thinking). Since that is the case, why *would* you start with evil actions to achive good if you don't have to?

Assuming the end justifies the means (which I don't agree with, but for this question we'll go with it), if you don't *have* to commit evil to achieve a good end, if the evil act is effectively optional, how can there possibly be any excuse for committing it?

Re: Do two wrongs make a right?
 

Using what is in the news right now...

You get a piece of intelligence that states that "John Smith" in Whereverville, USA is planning a terrorist operation.

Immediate wiretaps on 10 people names "John Smith" in Whereverville, USA and then finding that one of those individuals is a part of terrorist organization and stops a terrorist plot.

Evil is that you tapped 9 innocent people and recorded their personal conversations...

Is that a possible scenerio?

-Gryph

Re: Do two wrongs make a right?
 

No, you're still thinking of scenarios that are way too specific. I'm thinking of much broader, general scenarios.

Your scenario already assumes several evils before you pose the question. Go back to those evils first, and your question may not even make sense.

Re: Do two wrongs make a right?
 

I think 99% of the evil in today's world is committed under the belief that what's being done is not evil.

An example is taxation. Those who support taxation truly believe that able-bodied hard-workers have a moral duty to share the fruits of their labor with lazy and/or unskilled people. To the extent that the haves don't give at a level of X in the form of Y to the have-nots, they are being evil and deserve to be punished by having their wealth taken at the point of a gun, according to taxation supporters.

What is evil to you and me is justice to a large percentage of the population. This is the key issue IMO and not whether evil acts can lead to good or not.

Re: Do two wrongs make a right?
 

Yes, you're right on target.

Many people think evil acts are actually not evil. Of course, they'll tell you that men should be entitled to freedom and their property on the one hand, then turn right around and tell you that taxation is necessary because of all the good that comes from it. They don't see the disconnect.

Re: Do two wrongs make a right?
 

I strongly believe that for 99% of this planet, "evil" is defined as anything that threatens my comfort, and "good" is defined as anything that protects my comfort.

Re: Do two wrongs make a right?
 

Exactly.

You threaten my comfort you are evil to me. You dont threaten your own comfort you are not evil to your self.

There is no good or evil in the absolute.

Re: Do two wrongs make a right?
 

[ QUOTE ]
You threaten my comfort you are evil to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, fine. Now can actions that individually threaten your comfort level add up to a sum that increases your comfort level?

Unlikely
 

... nut I am listening.

Re: Do two wrongs make a right?
 

Your question is irrelevant. If the result is not evil (on net) how can the action possibly have been. Shouldn't an actions level of "goodness" be defined by the sum of its results?

Re: Do two wrongs make a right?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Your question is irrelevant. If the result is not evil (on net) how can the action possibly have been.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have a sequence of independent actions, all of which are unambiguously good. It seems reasonable to assume that the sum of those actions must be good. Now, what if you start the sequence out with a single "evil" action? How about if you end the sequence with an evil action?

Even if the "net" is good, wouldn't it be even better without the evil action?

You make an omlette with three good eggs. Each egg is "independent" in that you can either add it to the omlette or not, regardless of what you do with the other eggs. The omlette must be good, right? Now you make an omlette with three good eggs and one bad egg. Do you want to eat that omlette?

[ QUOTE ]
Shouldn't an actions level of "goodness" be defined by the sum of its results?

[/ QUOTE ]

Possibly. A better question is to ask if good and evil are "additive" (action A +2 goodness, action B +3 goodness, action C -1 goodness; total action A+B+C = 4 goodness, therefore A+B+C is "good") or if evil is a bad egg that spoils the whole omlette.

Note that in the first case, even though A+B+C is still "good", A+B is "better".

Now, no matter which theory you subscribe to, how can a series of independently bad actions result in a good whole?

Action A is -4 good, Action B is -1 good, etc... the sum of these actions can never be 0 or positive.

Any number of bad eggs can never make a good omlette.