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?
|