Talk:Two wrongs make a right

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Philosophy Portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
Additional information: Related task forces (core areas): Ethics Logic

[edit] Relevance to logic

How is this a logical fallacy???

I don't think this is a fallacy either. Logic and morals are two different domains...

Read the page logical fallacy. This is an example of an "informal fallacy", something that is considered fallacious more because its simply a common error than because of an inherent logical inconsistency. -Silence 11:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I added a sentence to make explicit that this is an informal fallacy. Otherwise, I feel that simply reffering to it as a "logical falacy" implies that it is a formal fallacy. IE, that it is inherently self contradicting. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Northern bear (talk • contribs) 09:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, this clarifies it nicely. Foobaz·o< 05:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Eye for an eye

Why is it rarely mentioned that "eye for an eye" is an extension of this fallacy?

Also, it's objectively true that two wrongs do not make a right. Wronging someone because they wronged you just means that both people are, overall, hurt. There is little or no beneficiary factor here to over-ride this.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.124.23.45 (talk • contribs) 21:49, 5 March 2007

An eye for an eye is not a logical fallacy. It is merely a moral, or legal position that one might take.

"John poked out Fred's eye. Therefore, it is just/fair, that Fred should poke out John's eye as retribution/retaliation."

One may argue with the moral validity of this statement. And one may claim that this is not a sound basis for the creation of laws. But the statement is not logically inconsistent.

In fact, many laws are based on the premise that "an eye for an eye" creates an effective deterent, and also preserves a sense of justice that will discourage anarchy and arbitrary retaliation.

If John knows that poking out Fred's eye will result in him having his own eye poked out, then he will be less likely to poke out Fred's eye. And surely that is a good thing. Of course, in order for the threat of "an eye for an eye" to be an effective deterent, it must be carried out. So although the punishment of John, may not produce a social good in and of itself, this act may discourage other crimes, and thus serves the greater good. Neither of the people who have been injured are any better off (arguably), but society as a whole could well be the beneficiary.

In many cases, an eye for an eye is in the greater good. From the narrow perspective of the two people invovled, it is merely two wrongs. But from the wider social perspective, the second wrong contributes to the overal good, so it has helped make things write. Sometimes two wrongs do make right.

Northern Bear 15:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

You two are engaging in logical fallacy yourselves. Taking someone's eye out without due process of law may be a wrong, but that does not make all eye-poking-out wrong. We tolerate courts' doing many things we would not permit private citizens to do - confinement, forced transfer of money, and execution. 70.146.15.172 01:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

To say that something is a logical falacy means that it is self contradictory. There is nothing self contradictory about the statement "It is just to poke someone's eye in retaliation for an eye poking." You may not agree with the statement. But there is nothing about the statement itself that is self contradictory. Hence it is not a falacy. Northern Bear 14:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

No, that's not what a logical fallacy is. A logical fallacy is an apparent argument where the conclusion does not follow from the premises. The fallacy at issue here is assuming that "It is wrong to take someone's eye" is an absolute prohibition, rather than "It is wrong to take someone's eye unless done under the sanction of law." Think about it this way. It is wrong to confine someone against his will, right? But then prison is confinement against one's will. It is wrong to take money under duress. But when a court enters a judgment, it does just that. The fallacy is failing to take account of the implicit assumption of the rules against harming other people - because all punishment and all civil damages are harmful to the one punished or to the one who must satisfy the judgment. You don't know what fallacy is, so you might not want to embarass yourself any further here. 72.144.68.227 20:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

"An eye for an eye" is not a logical falacy. It is simply a statement of opinion or belief. When someone says "I believe in an eye for an eye", all they are saying is "I believe that it is fair for criminals to be punished by receiving the same harm that they have inflicted." You may not agree with that belief. But because it is a belief, it can not be a logical falacy. Opinion are not falacies. An "eye for an eye", is no more a logical falacy than is the statement "star wars is better than star treck." You can disagree with an opinion. But you can not claim somebody's opinion is a logical falacy, unless the statement is somehow inherently contradictory ("star wars is better than star wars"). An eye for an eye is a matter of personal opinion/belief/outlook, and the statement of that belief is not self contradictory. Therefore, it can not be a logical falacy. Northern Bear 18:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

If you look at the actions objectively, it is a fallacy. the argument makes a good case for this. It is nherently self-contradictory to say that an action is right, yet wrong. I'm sorry, I'm not thinking as clearly as I wish I was, so I'm not sure how to explain this any better, but at best, it can be a fallacy. While it is admittedly fallacious, as the current article points out, to accuse others of hypocrisy and act as if this somehow invalidates their statements (such things have been done when addressing many notable politicians and other grat thinkers). I suppose it depends on objectivity. At face value, it appears to be contradictory, but perhaps it depends on the context of the situation. I'll try not to ramble here, I'm against eye-for-an-eye but I'm trying to be neutral. However, I can say Gandhi had a noteworthy quote regarding this: "An eye for an eye will make the whole world blind." The example regarding President Williams makes a good case for this. It is indeed fallacious--a red herring to be specific, to claim that the fact someone else acted a certain way justifies an identical reaction. Hypothetical: Joe makes Statement X: Let's assume that hitting people is wrong. Joe hits Bill. Bill disregards Statement X, claiming he is now justified to Joe because Joe did not follow his own advice, therefore invalidating his statement. The issue with this logic is as follows: Statement X was an example of moral absolutism, which can be argued as inherently incorrect. It can be argued that certain actions are required depending upon the context of the situation. Objectivity is defined as "not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice." Therefore, morality is parallel to this, or in other words it is subjective. Since the basis of my initial argument depends upon the objectivity of Statement X, the argument is flawed. Anyway, before I lose track of my original point, I believe it should remain an informal fallacy at least for now, because it is a moral argument which depending upon context may or may not be fallacious.67.70.93.45 00:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

When your entire argument rests on a fallacy, then yes, it's invalid. Do you know what a fallacy is? 72.144.68.227 20:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] reference removed ?

hello, I wrote the following reference :

• U2 wrote "Angry words won't stop the fight, Two wrongs won't make it right " in "Like A Song" in War album

but it have been removed. why ? What's wrong ? I did made something wrong ? it's just a citation, a reference. (note I'm not native english speaker)

Sorry if the removal was puzzling. The reason for this is that this article is about logical fallacies. The information about a U2 song lyric fragment does not add any information about logical fallacies. If this new information belongs in an article, then it would probably be in a music article, not this one. I hope that explanation helps, I should have perhaps considered making a comment on the talkpage at the time I removed the material. If this is still unclear, by all means contact this editor, on the Talkpage link shown here, and I will be glad to explain further, and sorry for the misunderstanding. — User:-Newbyguesses - Talk 21:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

no problem, thank for the explanation. it's true it does not add any information. Myself I love interaction between area, it helps to discover things, but that's ok. regards.