jonny5
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2012
- Messages
- 27,581
- Reaction score
- 4,664
- Location
- Republic of Florida
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
NOTE: THIS THREAD IS POSTED IN THE PHILOSOPHY SECTION. Only non-political discussion will be tolerated.
In response to the political wrangling over the Barett nomination, Ive been thinking about the logical consistency of the positions of both sides.
For example, Democrats say confirming someone so close to an election is wrong, but you did it, so we'll do it too (and maybe worse). This is 'eye for an eye'.
Alternatively, they could say 'what you did was wrong, and doing the same thing would also be wrong, so we wont do it too'. This is 'two wrongs dont make a right'.
Lets accept that Republicans do the exact same thing. This is not about partisanship, but rather logic, reason, philosophy.
So, which position is right, or both?
Are they both logical or consistent?
If you say A is wrong, but you did it, so Im going to do it also, then was A actually wrong? Is doing wrong, right?
In response to the political wrangling over the Barett nomination, Ive been thinking about the logical consistency of the positions of both sides.
For example, Democrats say confirming someone so close to an election is wrong, but you did it, so we'll do it too (and maybe worse). This is 'eye for an eye'.
Alternatively, they could say 'what you did was wrong, and doing the same thing would also be wrong, so we wont do it too'. This is 'two wrongs dont make a right'.
Lets accept that Republicans do the exact same thing. This is not about partisanship, but rather logic, reason, philosophy.
So, which position is right, or both?
Are they both logical or consistent?
If you say A is wrong, but you did it, so Im going to do it also, then was A actually wrong? Is doing wrong, right?