Society & Lifestyle >
Personal Morals & Values
Get a Widget for this title
RSS FeedDo two wrongs make a right?
Results so far:
| No | 90% | 901 votes | Total: 1006 votes | |
| Yes | 10% | 105 votes |
No
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesDo Two Wrongs Make a Right?
Can two wrongs ever make a right? The answer would have to be absolutely not. Philosophers and theologians have wrestled with the question of right and wrong for centuries. So it is safe to say that, the moral issue of doing right is not a new social or personal dilemma. Here are four reasons that two wrongs can never produce anything right.
Wrong is still wrong
How can we even consider that it is possible that doing something that is wrong will ever produce anything right? Right and wrong are two distinct opposites. Therefore, wrong can never be the right thing to do. The logic behind such thinking is fundamentally flawed. We can never live or behave in a right manner when we embrace wrong behavior as acceptable.
Doing wrong only makes you like those who have wronged you
Many times when this question is brought up, it is about payback. People are seeking justification in treating someone wrongly because they themselves have been wronged. We need move beyond the motive of repaying evil with evil. As long as, we repay wrong with more wrong, we lose. We become like those who have wronged us, we sink to a lower level of living. The moment that we make the choice to break the cycle and repay evil with good or wrong with right, we rise to a new level of living.
There are always consequences for doing wrong
How often are people punished for doing wrong like breaking the law? Our justice system seems to be working overtime each day. How often do people pay the price for wrong behavior in their personal conduct? Each day there are relationships that are damaged, promises are broken and prices paid for choices to do wrong. We never suffer from guilt because we have done the right thing. Our life is ridden with shame over those things we have done that are wrong.
Doing right is always the right thing to do
A person can never go wrong by doing the right thing. There are times when doing the right thing is far from popular but nothing can replace right living. We overcome wrongs by doing what is right. By doing the right thing, we stand for truth and grace, for morality and ethics and for justice and correct personal conduct. Doing what we know is right, brings us a host of benefits in life.
Revenge is far from sweet
Many people will do odd things just to get even. There is nothing sweet about doing something wrong trying to get even with another person. When we lash out at others in an attempt to take revenge, we only hurt ourselves. The longer we hold onto grudges and try to strike back at people who we believe to have wronged us, we will never live a right lifestyle. Doing wrong to get even only lowers us to the level of others.
Benefits of doing right
When we make the attempt to live in an upright manner, we gain a couple of major benefits. We gain the opportunity from genuine praise. It is highly unlikely that doing wrong will bring us anything but condemnation. By doing what is right, we have the opportunity to live with a clean conscience. Those who live doing right seem to have fewer regrets later in life.
Two wrongs can never make something right. If we want to overcome wrong doing, we must live a life that is above wrong behavior and stand up for what is right.
Learn more about this author, David Dewitt.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Yes
As long as we are on the topic of justice, I'd like to point out that no fair debate can come from a question phrased as a forgone conclusion. Naturally, it's wrong to do wrong things, and since the question presumes that retaliation is wrong, what kind of monster would answer "yes"?
It is the kind of monster who would like to consider this issue a little less superficially than the question would suggest. Imagine a world free of restraints of modern law and order. If you took your neighbor's eye out, you would probably lose your life - for it is very unlikely he would stop at merely taking out your own eye. We can congratulate each other on our supposed enlightenment all we want, but the sad truth is, very few people are satisfied with merely getting back what was taken from them, or some moral equivalent. The same folks who get worked up about "an eye for an eye" being barbaric won't think twice about wiping the floor with someone who offends them, if they can do so. Go into a bar, walk up to a random patron and slap him in the face. Do you think a retaliatory slap is all you'll get? Perhaps - but it is far more likely that you will get punched and kicked; the punishment you receive will be greater than your offense by several orders of magnitude. Or, check out forums that deal with gender issues some time. There are plenty of reasoned, "liberal" people who think women have the right to kill their abusers; "reasonable" men who believe a husband is justified in murdering a cheating or uncooperative wife; self-appointed advocates for justice who believe that flogging should be used to curb vandalism and that castration is a fitting punishment for rape. We have no business looking down upon "an eye for an eye" (no pun intended) if for no other reason than because we simply have never lived up to that standard in the first place.
This verse from the Old Testament is routinely held up as a relic of barbaric, primitive Mesopotamian justice. In reality, however, this verse contains a concept which is still revolutionary, even today - it is about limiting the severity of the punishment to that of the crime, the recovery for the victim to the quantum of harm actually suffered. It is about imposing a strict limitation on man's most basic violent urges - so basic, in fact, that we still experience them on a daily basis without even registering that anything is wrong. Moreover, unlike the idea of turning the other cheek (whose real-world effect is to promote bullying), it addresses not only the need to curb revenge, but also the society's interest in disinsentivizing future offenses.
Does it mean that people who injure others should literally be maimed? Of course not. Even the most Orthodox Jewish rabbis do not see it that way. The true significance of this verse is not in its literal interpretation, but in the moral value that it encapsulates. It is a great moral value, perhaps the most benevolent in the Jewish and Christian Bibles combined. Contrary to what is suggested by the majority here, if more of us embraced this value, we'd have fewer blind people - and in general, fewer victims of sweet revenge than we do now.
Learn more about this author, Redisca.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
- Personal Morals & Values
- Which is more important:
- Do you see the world from the half empty or half full perspective?
- Do you always say "yes" when you really want to say "no"?
- Is getting happier a natural element of getting older?
- Is wearing fur immoral?
- Are you concerned about what tomorrow will bring or prepared?
