When do two wrongs make a right?

[brynpoeth]

I was at an event organised by the city bus service. The general manager said she thought it would be okay if her staff exceeded the maximum speed limit on the way back to the depot at the end of a shift. I was speechless. Much later it occurred to me that I should have asked whether I might break the law too with her approval - if only travelling a couple of stops I would not bother buying a ticket.

When do two wrongs make a right? I ask this as a philosophical question, for once answers not to do with traffic would interest me. Diolch/Danke

Just read an article in the Guardian about "untranslateable" words. In Yiddish "trepverter" means: the witty or suitable response that one occurred to one too late, it could also translate as "staircase words".

[661-Pete]

No no, it was more than ten years ago and it took me years to dream up the response. I just wish it had occurred to me immediately so I could embarrass her in front of an audience, maybe the local press was there too.

I was using the Heslop analogy rather loosely. Sorry! I appreciate that you said this was many years ago.

Regarding those 'wish I'd acted differently' moments - yes I've had those, perhaps we all have. One example probably ought not to be repeated - I sometimes think back to a certain long-ago incident in my life (not cycling-related) and muse: "I wish I'd walked up to [a certain individual who insulted me in public] and punched him on the nose". Please understand! This didn't happen - and is not something I'm ever likely to do in Real Life....

[Edwards]

When scumbag 1 attempts to steal a van aided by scumbag 2 who did not manage to get in and ran away. Within 1 week of then both being allowed out on licence.

When it got to court the case against scumbag 2 was dropped, then scumbag 1 changes his plea to guilty. Thus I did not have to give evidence.

Now the naughty bit I am spreading the word that the police implied that scumbag 2 did a deal to get off by agreeing to give evidence against scumbag 1.

Scumbag 1 got 2 years so will most likely be out next January

A decent sentence. Relatively harsh. In another case scumbag stabs my brother after breaking into the house. Scumbag gets 2 years out after one year with good behaviour. Scumbag is a half brother to both of us.

We were told that the sentence was higher than the sentencing guidelines to reflect the lack of respect for the life of others. He tried to scrape the driver/owner off the side using parked vehicles. That was how I came to be involved and I ended up unconscious in the road.

I forgot to say that scumbag 1 lives just down the road from me, so creating a rift between them would be helpful.

[Boyd]

When scumbag 1 attempts to steal a van aided by scumbag 2 who did not manage to get in and ran away. Within 1 week of then both being allowed out on licence.

When it got to court the case against scumbag 2 was dropped, then scumbag 1 changes his plea to guilty. Thus I did not have to give evidence.

Now the naughty bit I am spreading the word that the police implied that scumbag 2 did a deal to get off by agreeing to give evidence against scumbag 1.

Scumbag 1 got 2 years so will most likely be out next January

A decent sentence. Relatively harsh. In another case scumbag stabs my brother after breaking into the house. Scumbag gets 2 years out after one year with good behaviour. Scumbag is a half brother to both of us.

We were told that the sentence was higher than the sentencing guidelines to reflect the lack of respect for the life of others. He tried to scrape the driver/owner off the side using parked vehicles. That was how I came to be involved and I ended up unconscious in the road.

I forgot to say that scumbag 1 lives just down the road from me, so creating a rift between them would be helpful.

Nice, I wish you full success in your endeavours.

[NATURAL ANKLING]

Hi,
Compulsive thief keeps getting caught but always pleads mitigating circumstances, so little or no time in jail.

Cut off hand..................................?

[pete75]

[quote="pwa" So if a member of my family was a victim of violence and the law failed to deal with a perpetrator, and I knew who it was, I would deal with it myself without any feelings of guilt. Only after the law had failed. To some that would be committing another "wrong", but not to me.

[/quote]

And then a relative of theirs decides to deal with you and after that one of your relatives decides to deal with him and so it goes on......

[brynpoeth]

[quote="pwa" So if a member of my family was a victim of violence and the law failed to deal with a perpetrator, and I knew who it was, I would deal with it myself without any feelings of guilt. Only after the law had failed. To some that would be committing another "wrong", but not to me.

And then a relative of theirs decides to deal with you and after that one of your relatives decides to deal with him and so it goes on......[/quote]

Jesus was right!
Violence is never the answer

[pwa]

[quote="pwa" So if a member of my family was a victim of violence and the law failed to deal with a perpetrator, and I knew who it was, I would deal with it myself without any feelings of guilt. Only after the law had failed. To some that would be committing another "wrong", but not to me.

And then a relative of theirs decides to deal with you and after that one of your relatives decides to deal with him and so it goes on......

When you see the law failing to deal with a gross injustice, you can choose between walking away or seeking justice by alternative means. The latter is not great, but to just walk away if you know somebody is getting away with harming someone you care about...? Each must make up their own mind in that situation, and if turning the other cheek seems best, fine.

But justice and the law are not the same thing. The law is supposed to be a tool to give us justice, but it can fail. Justice is higher than the law. For me it takes priority over the law. I hope I never find myself in a situation where I have to choose, because I really think justice is best dispensed by the law and society works best when that is happening. But in an extreme situation that I'm not likely to face, I would be willing to contemplate taking illegal action to remedy an injustice the law has failed with. I'm not violent, I've never hurt anyone, so actually harming another human would not come easy to me.

(Didn't think this thread would be dug up again

[pete75]

[quote="pwa" So if a member of my family was a victim of violence and the law failed to deal with a perpetrator, and I knew who it was, I would deal with it myself without any feelings of guilt. Only after the law had failed. To some that would be committing another "wrong", but not to me.

And then a relative of theirs decides to deal with you and after that one of your relatives decides to deal with him and so it goes on......

When you see the law failing to deal with a gross injustice, you can choose between walking away or seeking justice by alternative means. The latter is not great, but to just walk away if you know somebody is getting away with harming someone you care about...? Each must make up their own mind in that situation, and if turning the other cheek seems best, fine.

But justice and the law are not the same thing. The law is supposed to be a tool to give us justice, but it can fail. Justice is higher than the law. For me it takes priority over the law. I hope I never find myself in a situation where I have to choose, because I really think justice is best dispensed by the law and society works best when that is happening. But in an extreme situation that I'm not likely to face, I would be willing to contemplate taking illegal action to remedy an injustice the law has failed with. I'm not violent, I've never hurt anyone, so actually harming another human would not come easy to me.

(Didn't think this thread would be dug up again

What you're talking about is personal revenge.

[Username]

2 wrongs dont make a right, they cancel each other out.

[pwa]

And then a relative of theirs decides to deal with you and after that one of your relatives decides to deal with him and so it goes on......

When you see the law failing to deal with a gross injustice, you can choose between walking away or seeking justice by alternative means. The latter is not great, but to just walk away if you know somebody is getting away with harming someone you care about...? Each must make up their own mind in that situation, and if turning the other cheek seems best, fine.

But justice and the law are not the same thing. The law is supposed to be a tool to give us justice, but it can fail. Justice is higher than the law. For me it takes priority over the law. I hope I never find myself in a situation where I have to choose, because I really think justice is best dispensed by the law and society works best when that is happening. But in an extreme situation that I'm not likely to face, I would be willing to contemplate taking illegal action to remedy an injustice the law has failed with. I'm not violent, I've never hurt anyone, so actually harming another human would not come easy to me.

(Didn't think this thread would be dug up again

What you're talking about is personal revenge.

Possibly. Not something I do normally, and definitely inferior to the law dealing with it. I simply have it as a possibility in some hypothetical, extreme situation that, God willing, I will never face. My devotion to those I love, and to justice, is greater than my devotion to the law. We are talking about very extreme circumstances here, not some dispute over a garden fence or something like that.

[reohn2]

Jesus was right!
Violence is never the answer

There are times when violence is the only answer if you wish to stop further violence by the initial instigator.
Eg; you wake up in the middle of the night to screams by another member of the family being chased about the house by an intruder.Do you:-a)try to reason with the intruder that he really should leave?
b)phone the police hoping they'll come quickly?
c)beat the intruder with the baseball bat you keep by the side of the bed,until you render him harmless or he leaves?

Personally I'd go for c) and yes I do have a weapon by the side of the bed,just in case.That's because the intruder has no right to enter my home uninvited so I would assume the worst,because time is of the essence in such a case and I know the police are useless,and that I'd need to protect my family by solving the problem myself.

[brynpoeth]

Jesus was right!
Violence is never the answer

There are times when violence is the only answer ....

Like in WW2, hoping to see the next Churchill film soon
In the trailer WC shouts: "will you please stop interrupting me while I am interrupting you!"

[reohn2]

Jesus was right!
Violence is never the answer

There are times when violence is the only answer ....

Like in WW2, hoping to see the next Churchill film soon
In the trailer WC shouts: "will you please stop interrupting me while I am interrupting you!"

?

[Cunobelin]

Brynpoeth has asked for a response to the philosophical aspect of the question.

The first problem is defining "wrong". It's not an absolute, its seems to me. Certainly the laws of the country aren't absolute "rights" . it's been noted by others, upthread, that individuals make their own decisions about the morality of any particular law, and a subsequent willingness to break it.

The question can only be answered, in philosophical terms, if we define "wrong'; that everybody involved accepts this definition; and the application is consistent. These conditions rarely co-exist.

In such a scenario, it's possible to imagine that state A is changed to state B by someone committing a "wrong", and B is then changed to state C by another "wrong" . However, the overall change from A to C is a "right".

For example, I might define the act of entering someone else's property uninvited and the act of stealing someone else's property as two distinct "wrongs", irrespective of any legal definition. If a thief were to steal someone's bike and stash it in their garage, it would be a "wrong". If someone knew about this, entered the garage, and removed the stolen bike to a place of safety, it would also be a "wrong". But, the overall result (bike being restored to owner) would be a "right".

BUT.......and this is a big BUT........the definitions are purely arbitrary on my part. They may have some credence with some other people, and they may have some correlation to our (British) legal framework, but they are essentially arbitrary. It's beyond credibility that everyone will agree with me. For example, it could be argued that it's not "wrong" to go into someone's garage to retrieve a stolen bike.

So, I'd say there can only be an answer, in philosophical terms, if the three conditions (definition: acceptance by all; consistency) are met. In real terms, any answer will be always up for debate. (Hence the colour, length and entertainment of many of the threads in the forum )

Thomas Hobbes' "Leviathan"