When do two wrongs make a right?

[Cyril Haearn]

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

[landsurfer]

Which bus company, and what is her name please.

[Cyril Haearn]

Which bus company, and what is her name please.

What do you want to do with this information? BTW the incident was many years ago, it took a few years to dream up the suggested riposte.

[661-Pete]

Probably a moribund issue then - not worth following up.

I too have had the occasional "Heslop*" moment - thinking about the witty riposte I ought to have made, but far too late. Perhaps it's a common trait.

*For the uninitiated: "Heslop" was the dim-witted character in Porridge, ably portrayed by Brian Glover, who always got the joke - five minutes after everyone else!

[[XAP]Bob]

"Two negatives make a positive, but nowhere can two positives make a negative" says the teacher

"Yeah, right" comes a voice from the back of the class...

[mercalia]

when 2 Chinese meet Mr & Ms Right

[pwa]

I think that breaking the law is generally a bad idea, because laws are made by our democratically elected government (yes, I know it's not perfect) and we have ways of changing laws we don't approve of. But, I also believe that when, in extreme circumstances, the law has let you down you have the justification you need to "take the law into your own hands". 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.

With speed limits I try to stick close to the spirit of the thing and don't worry too much if I stray 1mph above if all the other circumstances suggest it is safe. I'm more focused on watching for hazards. I don't intend exceeding speed limits, but I don't feel too bad if I find I have gone over by a little. I just ease off to correct it. If I think a limit is too low I stay at (or very close to) that limit anyway. It does not inconvenience me much to slow down.

I suppose breaking the law is something we should do only when our conscience makes adherence to the law unacceptable. In those circumstances it is the law that is wrong. For me those occasions are rare. Nearly all of my illegal activity (doing 24mph in a 20 zone, for example) is down to doziness rather than intent.

[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

[Cyril Haearn]

Probably a moribund issue then - not worth following up.

I too have had the occasional "Heslop*" moment - thinking about the witty riposte I ought to have made, but far too late. Perhaps it's a common trait.

*For the uninitiated: "Heslop" was the dim-witted character in Porridge, ably portrayed by Brian Glover, who always got the joke - five minutes after everyone else!

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.

[Geoff.D]

"Two negatives make a positive, but nowhere can two positives make a negative" says the teacher

"Yeah, right" comes a voice from the back of the class...

[Zoidsberg]

When someone has been vandalizing national cycle network direction signs?

[Geoff.D]

Cyril Haearn 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 )

[Cyril Haearn]

Yes that is the right sort of answer

My suggested definition of philosophy: something I do not quite understand.

Hegel wrote: "unser Kenntnis soll Erkenntnis werden". Our Kenntnis should become Erkenntnis. Kenntnis and Erkenntnis both translate as knowledge, but I think he meant we should progress from being told something or reading it in a book to knowing, understanding, experiencing

[belgiangoth]

I think the Hegel distinction is between a piece of knowledge/fact and something that is discovered/understood.

I think maybe to help Geoff you would need to consider an example where act B is something that you as the narrator are happy to accept is wrong, then work back to what A would be and then see whether C is justified.

On the face of it, in the abstract philosophical setup, I think the easy answer is yes; but probably if you consider why B is wrong and that there is a margin of error on the motive to carry out B, then I am not so sure.

[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.