In what sense does 2 wrongs make a right?

  • Thread starter Thread starter fakename
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

fakename

Guest
I think that 2 wrongs can make a right because 1) punishments are an evil inflicted as a consequence of a moral evil and the punishment is correct as a way of protecting the good order of the universe.

However, 2 moral evils don’t compensate for each other -one cannot fight a lack of friendliness with inappropriate friendliness.

Is there anything else to add to this?
 
fakename said:
I think that 2 wrongs can make a right because 1) punishments are an evil inflicted as a consequence of a moral evil and the punishment is correct as a way of protecting the good order of the universe.
Click to expand...
Your mistake is calling punishment an evil. It is not. When properly administered, punishment can be a great good, not only for society in general, but also for the person being punished.

So, no, 2 wrongs do not make a right, unless you adopt a really twisted definition of “wrong”.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
Your mistake is calling punishment an evil. It is not. When properly administered, punishment can be a great good, not only for society in general, but also for the person being punished.

So, no, 2 wrongs do not make a right, unless you adopt a really twisted definition of “wrong”.
Click to expand...
I’m thinking of an old adege,“The only really bad life experience is the one from which we don’t learn”. :shrug:Peace, Carlan
 
fakename said:
I think that 2 wrongs can make a right because 1) punishments are an evil inflicted as a consequence of a moral evil and the punishment is correct as a way of protecting the good order of the universe.

However, 2 moral evils don’t compensate for each other -one cannot fight a lack of friendliness with inappropriate friendliness.

Is there anything else to add to this?
Click to expand...
Hi,

Punishment can be Mercy and Love at the same time as well.

I do not follow your logic in relating moral evils with friendliness. It seems to be jumping from punishments, to moral evils, to friendliness or lack there off.

Little One0307
 
Punishment is not a synonym for “evil.” There is such a thing as “justice.” I’ve been thinking about this a bit lately and this article was really an interesting take on legitimate and illegitimate rejoicing and justice.

The author quotes Aquinas a lot and says:
Saint Thomas concludes saying that if “the avenger’s intention be directed chiefly to some good, to be obtained by means of the punishment of the person who has sinned (for instance that the sinner may amend, or at least that he may be restrained and others be not disturbed, that justice may be upheld, and God honored), then vengeance may be lawful, provided other due circumstances be observed.”5
Click to expand...
This act of vengeance — which proceeds from the love of God and zeal for justice — Saint Thomas adds, is not only legitimate, but is a virtue, since “the punishment of sins, … so far as it is concerned in defending the rights of the individual by whom a wrong is resisted, it belongs to the virtue of revenge.” This virtue has its root in charity, because “[z]eal, as denoting the fervor of love, signifies the primary root of vengeance, in so far as a man avenges the wrong done to God and his neighbor, because charity makes him regard them as his own. Now every act of virtue proceeds from charity as its root, since, according to [St.] Gregory (Hom. xxvii in Ev.), ‘there are no green leaves on the bough of good works, unless charity be the root.’”6
Click to expand...
 
LeafByNiggle said:
Your mistake is calling punishment an evil. It is not. When properly administered, punishment can be a great good, not only for society in general, but also for the person being punished.

So, no, 2 wrongs do not make a right, unless you adopt a really twisted definition of “wrong”.
Click to expand...
Punishment is an evil -not a moral one no, but a physical one. This much is difficult to object to, since hardly anyone could say that floods or ailments are physical goods yet even death itself is God’s punishment to man and yet hardly anything less natural or physically good for a man can be imagined than death.

Again I asked “in what sense does 2 wrongs make a right”. And in this sense I think it is okay to say that the pain of punishment is redress for the wrong of some sin. But both are called evil in perhaps an analogous way. I prove this by saying that all good is analogous, but evil is just not good, so all not good must also be analogous. And if it is analogous its truth conditions of one usage of the word are coherently related to the other uses of the word. So not good, or bad, is analogously said, and so it makes sense to say that 2 wrongs make a right since “wrong” is not equivocally used.
 
fakename said:
I think that 2 wrongs can make a right because 1) punishments are an evil inflicted as a consequence of a moral evil and the punishment is correct as a way of protecting the good order of the universe.

However, 2 moral evils don’t compensate for each other -one cannot fight a lack of friendliness with inappropriate friendliness.

Is there anything else to add to this?
Click to expand...
Like most are saying… Punishment is not evil.

I guess it depends on how you frame or define "Punishment"s Cruel and unusual = YES
Fitting, medicinal, and Natural = NO

Punishments can be medicinal - designed to teach a person some greater good/principle and therefore actually being a moral good.

Punishments can be fitting, that is, in fitting with justice and appropriate.

Punishments can be Natural - that is derived purely from the consequences of the action.

For instance… if a child lies to their parents, a natural consequence which is also a punishment is that the parent now checks up on the child, questions them, restricts their choices, etc. Because trust has been broken. The consequence is borken trust, the punishment is GPS software installed on their cellphone, frequent calls from the parent and/or restrictions where the child can go. 'til over time, trust is rebuilt.

That is not EVIL, that is natural and appropriate. It ALSO is medicinal, because it teaches the child to be trustworthy and cooperate with their parents. - HOPEFULLY
 
fakename said:
Punishment is an evil -not a moral one no, but a physical one. This much is difficult to object to, since hardly anyone could say that floods or ailments are physical goods yet even death itself is God’s punishment to man and yet hardly anything less natural or physically good for a man can be imagined than death.

Again I asked “in what sense does 2 wrongs make a right”. And in this sense I think it is okay to say that the pain of punishment is redress for the wrong of some sin. But both are called evil in perhaps an analogous way. I prove this by saying that all good is analogous, but evil is just not good, so all not good must also be analogous. And if it is analogous its truth conditions of one usage of the word are coherently related to the other uses of the word. So not good, or bad, is analogously said, and so it makes sense to say that 2 wrongs make a right since “wrong” is not equivocally used.
Click to expand...
As the other posters have pointed out, you are wrong. Punishment is NOT an evil.
 
thistle said:
As the other posters have pointed out, you are wrong. Punishment is NOT an evil.
Click to expand...
“Of physical evil (malum pænæ) He [God] is also the cause. Physical evil, considered as it proceeds from God and is inflicted in punishment of sin in accordance with the decrees of Divine justice, is good, compensating for the violation of order by sin. It is only in the subject affected by it that it is evil.”

from newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm

Now if punishment were not an evil, then it could not be physical evil. In which case it could not be “physical evil…inflicted in punishment.” Hence the encyclopedia would be wrong which is impossible since the Catholic faith is not wrong and the encyclopedia is just an expression of that faith.
 
fakename said:
Again I asked “in what sense does 2 wrongs make a right”. And in this sense I think it is okay to say that the pain of punishment is redress for the wrong of some sin. But both are called evil in perhaps an analogous way. I prove this by saying that all good is analogous, but evil is just not good, so all not good must also be analogous. And if it is analogous its truth conditions of one usage of the word are coherently related to the other uses of the word. So not good, or bad, is analogously said, and so it makes sense to say that 2 wrongs make a right since “wrong” is not equivocally used.
Click to expand...
I’d say that in a sense, “2 wrongs can make a right” only in so far as I’ve heard it discussed that in Philosophy, there is a concept of “Double affect” - that is, that our actions can have both a primary and secondary affect.

So long as the primary motive or action is moral and the 2nd is either unforseen or unavoidable, then in that rare circumstance, one can say they were acting moral.

However, if someone ONLY considers the 2nd affect, the one which was unavoidable or unforseen and which had a negative consequence. Then that person may in a certain and perhaps incorrect way, claim that 2 wrong made a right.

But realize that in this hypothetical situation, the person claiming that 2 wrongs made a right is looking at only the 2nd negative side effect and not the primary causation.

But this is only theoretical… I’d be hard pressed to come up with a concrete real-world example.

So for purposes of you exploring this idea… I think the “Principle of Double Affect” comes the closest, perhaps.

But I’m not a philosopher, so that’s as far as I can go.
 
You may never commit evil in order that good may come of it. God alone is the judge of good and evil. We assume the role of God when we start making judgement calls on which evil is permissable.

Esoteric philosophical arguments aside, it is never permissible to commit evil because you think it will prevent a greater evil. That type of thinking is why God gave us an authoritative Church.

-Tim-
 
a policeman lying or using deception to catch a bab guy, murder, drug pusher, etc.,

The lady in Hebrews 11 who lied about where the spies were to save their lives.
 
Big_Dummy said:
a policeman lying or using deception to catch a bab guy, murder, drug pusher, etc.,

The lady in Hebrews 11 who lied about where the spies were to save their lives.
Click to expand...
The means if they are means that are morally wrong and against God’s law never justify the end.

Evil never can be used to bring about a good and it be morally right.
 
fakename said:
I think that 2 wrongs can make a right because 1) punishments are an evil inflicted as a consequence of a moral evil and the punishment is correct as a way of protecting the good order of the universe.

However, 2 moral evils don’t compensate for each other -one cannot fight a lack of friendliness with inappropriate friendliness.

Is there anything else to add to this?
Click to expand...
The quote by “Redsoxwife” is very good and includes St Thomas thought re justice ect.

Now, theres more since I think as there was no query on post mentioned… which is EXACTLY
what your asking about… you are searching for.more …So let me have a go at it.

I will impart an example for you in order to highlight relative behavior which is exactly what the Saint is talking about… The only thing in the Universe which is a constant is light. Including our behavior. Pure Love however in my opinion is not relative…so…

If I have children and one child is a bully , always acting as he or she is the boss, and thus showing a good deal of selfishness, lets look at punishment and the implications of relative action.

I tell the bully kid…ok thats it, you’ve been told and thats not doing it, therefore you shall stay inside the house on Saturday, while others are outside enjoying a fun day at the baseball Field.

The infraction is once again explained as well the nature of punishment due to a hopeful learning experience. This is key, ultimately a learning experience.

The punishment relative to the kid is not evil or in fact a depreciation to his becoming. Use the word becoming in philosophy, it eliminates allot of unnecessary explaining. Becoming-Existence… or life.

Continuing…

While RELATIVE to his expectations of a delightful day at the park, the punishment seems derogatory to his deserved happiness, although it is not punishment RELATIVE to proper becoming,

Left alone…all alone…by himself now…the thinking starts, the beginning of self examination,
forced out of need to fit in, have fun. Already explained the hopeful result is that the child learns of the nature of himself, a sensitivity to himself…thats important as then there is experience and example which allows the reality of the same needs in his lovely brothers and sisters.

So…what have we got here…punishment being just a word. It really wasn’t punishment once the experience was endured as the hopeful change in his becoming has grown.

REAL Caring is not without prudential attention… to need in becoming

Need to get a tooth pulled, it is causing pain, bacteria and so on…Why??? In order to be able
to forget about it and feel comfortable…
Does the patient tell the dentist…but it will hurt, so this is contrary to my plans to feel more comfortable? Its all about percieved and relative need…Relative to my becoming and required on-going comfort of no tooth pain the extraction is not a negative procedure , regardless of the annoying additional pain to pull it out…Relative to the experience only…it is negative…isn’t it.?
No matter what the equation if …as the Saint explains it will show love of thy neighbour if punishment is truely given in FULL hope of…thy neighbour. The justice is for both for guilty and the social…thats why its called justice…truth in whole interaction
 
When God sanctions it, it is right. Thats just beautiful. Thats why the world is in the MESS its in…everybody and their brother says…God told me its good and your going down brother!!!

The only thing left is the aspect of ill-will and self gain, or an escape route from humility.

If it is a lie, or such the act must be examined in order to be categorized. If there is ill-will or deception which unfolds a heightened expectation to self worth, allowing for exaltation, error is in hand. Deception for material gain, without any evidence of constructive reason in care for fellow man is to be in error
Other than that these threads are getting boring…no doubt
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top