Can two wrongs ever make a right?

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

"Two wrongs make a right" is a fallacy of relevance, in which an allegation of wrongdoing is countered with a similar allegation. Its antithesis, "two wrongs don't make a right", is a proverb used to rebuke or renounce wrongful conduct as a response to another's transgression.

Can two wrongs ever make a right? The underlying question is whether it is moral to sacrifice morals for the greater good.
Killing terrorists can be said as an example. You're countering a wrong with another wrong which results in a right.

Is it moral? You could consider any act that results in a positive outcome as an act that could be considered moral. However, this leads to a slippery slope where systematically killing humans to control overpopulation becomes a moral act. 


Thoughts?

[The Grand Nudger]

Can two wrongs ever make a right? The underlying question is whether it is moral to sacrifice morals for the greater good.
Killing terrorists can be said as an example. You're countering a wrong with another wrong which results in a right.

IMO, you're confusing practical necessity with moral imperative.  You may have to kill someone to stop them from killing, but that doesn't make killing them right (nor am I maintaining here, btw, that's it's wrong to do so), only necessary.  

Is it moral? You could consider any act that results in a positive outcome as an act that could be considered moral. However, this leads to a slippery slope where systematically killing humans to control overpopulation as a moral act. 

It also leads to two "wrongs" still being wrong since you would be considering two acts with negative outcomes.  

Thoughts?

That two wrongs never make a right, even if two wrongs may, sometimes, cancel one or the other out. Also, that I'm willing to be in the wrong, from time to time, particularly in the face of necessity.

[ignoramus]

IE. You're a pro-lifer..You get raped and are now pregnant. What do?

[bennyboy]

IE.   You're a pro-lifer..You get raped and are now pregnant. What do?

Pretty sure that's the easiest question ever for them-- you have the baby.

[The Grand Nudger]

IDK, we had a pretty christian poster yesterday or the day before split the baby (couldn't help it) between emergency contraceptives and abortives and the icky, impermissable kind of abortions. Apparently, pro lifers make moral exemptions. That's to be expected..though, isn't it? A person incapable of doing so, regardless of how strongly held their moral convictions may be......would be a trembling wreck in their day to day lives, long before they ever had to consider any truly difficult moral compromise.

[paulpablo]

"Two wrongs make a right" is a fallacy of relevance, in which an allegation of wrongdoing is countered with a similar allegation. Its antithesis, "two wrongs don't make a right", is a proverb used to rebuke or renounce wrongful conduct as a response to another's transgression.

Can two wrongs ever make a right? The underlying question is whether it is moral to sacrifice morals for the greater good.
Killing terrorists can be said as an example. You're countering a wrong with another wrong which results in a right.

Is it moral? You could consider any act that results in a positive outcome as an act that could be considered moral. However, this leads to a slippery slope where systematically killing humans to control overpopulation becomes a moral act. 


Thoughts?

By definition two wrongs can't make a right because they're both wrong.

Say if a terrorist is in armed conflict with the police, it's right that his head gets blasted off his shoulders.  So that's not two wrongs making a right, that's one right stopping a wrong by reasonable use of force.

But then obviously there's subjective opinion about what is wrong and right.  But if something is seen as wrong then doubling up on that wrong action with similar wrong actions will obviously remain subjectively wrong.

As for human population problems, I think abortion and birth control are acceptable, the only debate in my mind is how they're paid for.
I've heard some arguments about the American planned parenthood being founded by a woman who believed in eugenics and it's basically a method of reducing the black population in disguise of a liberal charitable organization.
That's just an argument I've heard though, I really don't have much opinion on the finance of birth control or planned parenthood.  I can afford abortion and birthcontrol if I want it, I don't know how much tax is being used to pay for other people's abortions and birth control but it might be worth it in the long run.

^
Just realized this last part is a bit off topic possibly. But to cut a long story short, I think it's true that most things are subjectively right or wrong despite the strong opinions I sometimes have about what is right or wrong.

[TheRealJoeFish]

To a moral relativist like me, that's like asking "can two herps make a derp?" It's like... I don't get it.

No, but seriously. I mean, it should be possible to think of some situations in which if you do "Action A", that's "wrong" (again, whatever the eff that means), and if you do "Action B" that's wrong, but if you do Actions A and B, it's right.

Like... thinking... thinking...

This is hard. But at least I've formalized the framework

[account_inactive]

I have absolutely no idea.

[Anomalocaris]

"Two wrongs make a right" is a fallacy of relevance, in which an allegation of wrongdoing is countered with a similar allegation. Its antithesis, "two wrongs don't make a right", is a proverb used to rebuke or renounce wrongful conduct as a response to another's transgression.

Can two wrongs ever make a right? The underlying question is whether it is moral to sacrifice morals for the greater good.
Killing terrorists can be said as an example. You're countering a wrong with another wrong which results in a right.

Is it moral? You could consider any act that results in a positive outcome as an act that could be considered moral. However, this leads to a slippery slope where systematically killing humans to control overpopulation becomes a moral act. 


Thoughts?

That depends on how you define wrong for each of the two supposed wrongs.

[Ravenshire]

No.

But, three lefts will.