• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

"Eye For an Eye" vs "Two Wrongs Dont Make A Right"

jonny5

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?
 
jonny5 said:
Only non-political discussion will be tolerated.
Click to expand...
Perhaps this is why you got no response...you made the rule and broke the rule in the same breath...
 
Elvira said:
Perhaps this is why you got no response...you made the rule and broke the rule in the same breath...
Click to expand...

Except I didnt. I just assumed i got no response because I wasnt snarky enough. Or didnt insult someone.
 
It comes down to this, do as I say, not as I do.
 
When it advantages me, I will do it. When it advantages you, you will do it. And I will cry foul when you do it, even if I did it the same way before. Just like you will when I do it. And then I will point out how consistent I am and how inconsistent you are. And you will return that favor. So, in essence, we will both lie and bullshit when it serves our purposes.
 
Waddy said:
When it advantages me, I will do it. When it advantages you, you will do it. And I will cry foul when you do it, even if I did it the same way before. Just like you will when I do it. And then I will point out how consistent I am and how inconsistent you are. And you will return that favor. So, in essence, we will both lie and bullshit when it serves our purposes.
Click to expand...

I thought that's only how things worked in the 3rd grade on the playground at recess. I didn't realize the pattern would continue with grownups in the United States Senate.
 
ataraxia said:
I thought that's only how things worked in the 3rd grade on the playground at recess. I didn't realize the pattern would continue with grownups in the United States Senate.
Click to expand...
You are such a naive little child. :) This is how the real grownup world, government at least, works. But the comparison to the third grade playground is very accurate. You got that part right.
 
Waddy said:
When it advantages me, I will do it. When it advantages you, you will do it. And I will cry foul when you do it, even if I did it the same way before. Just like you will when I do it. And then I will point out how consistent I am and how inconsistent you are. And you will return that favor. So, in essence, we will both lie and bullshit when it serves our purposes.
Click to expand...

What about when self interest is sacrifice? For example, sticking to principles.
 
jonny5 said:
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?
Click to expand...


The modern Jewish intepretation of 'an eye for an eye' is 'No more than an eye for an eye, nor more than a tooth for a tooth'. In other words, it is being used as an warning against excessive judgement for a wrong done. Since there is a principle of also assigning a monetary value to various punishments, it could be further interrpeted as 'no more than a value of an eye for an eye, no more than the value of a tooth for a tooth'
 
jonny5 said:
What about when self interest is sacrifice? For example, sticking to principles.
Click to expand...
What have principles got to do with politics? And what does sacrifice got to do with self interest?
 
Waddy said:
What have principles got to do with politics? And what does sacrifice got to do with self interest?
Click to expand...

I asked you...but I guess I can debate myself.

One seems pretty obvious. Politics are a reflection of principles.
Two is more complex. For some, happiness (self interest) is dependent on how you feel about yourself. Thus adhering to a set of beliefs vs compromising them to serve a political advantage serves the self interest more.
 
jonny5 said:
I asked you...but I guess I can debate myself.

One seems pretty obvious. Politics are a reflection of principles.
Two is more complex. For some, happiness (self interest) is dependent on how you feel about yourself. Thus adhering to a set of beliefs vs compromising them to serve a political advantage serves the self interest more.
Click to expand...
No; politics is a reflection of a lack of principles. BTW; happiness and self interest aren't necessarily the same thing. But more to the point, in order to compromise a set of beliefs one must first have a set of beliefs. An advantage in politics is to not have a set of rigid beliefs, but to be able to adjust, and even reverse, your position on the fly to get out ahead of trends. Then ride the crest of that wave and claim you are the leader.
 
Waddy said:
No; politics is a reflection of a lack of principles. BTW; happiness and self interest aren't necessarily the same thing. But more to the point, in order to compromise a set of beliefs one must first have a set of beliefs. An advantage in politics is to not have a set of rigid beliefs, but to be able to adjust, and even reverse, your position on the fly to get out ahead of trends. Then ride the crest of that wave and claim you are the leader.
Click to expand...

Youre confusing modern application of politics with politics. Politics itself is neutral, just a tool group use to solve conflicts. Which arise because people have different principles.
 
jonny5 said:
Youre confusing modern application of politics with politics. Politics itself is neutral, just a tool group use to solve conflicts. Which arise because people have different principles.
Click to expand...
politics is always neutral by that definition. People use politics as a way to get what they want; principles has little to do with it. Principles, if such a beast exists in politics, are sacrificed when they get in the way of what people want.
 
Waddy said:
politics is always neutral by that definition. People use politics as a way to get what they want; principles has little to do with it. Principles, if such a beast exists in politics, are sacrificed when they get in the way of what people want.
Click to expand...

What they want is the principle.
 
I have read that an eye for an eye was an improvement in the administration of justice.

I believe that it is a great concept.

For example, if a young gentleman sucker punches me, I should have the right to sucker punch him.

Let's see how he likes them apples!

An eye for an eye would stop a lot of crime.
 
TheParser said:
I have read that an eye for an eye was an improvement in the administration of justice.

I believe that it is a great concept.

For example, if a young gentleman sucker punches me, I should have the right to sucker punch him.

Let's see how he likes them apples!

An eye for an eye would stop a lot of crime.
Click to expand...

Wouldnt it make everyone blind?
 
jonny5 said:
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?
Click to expand...

Well, number one, "An eye for an eye doesnt mean what you think it means.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom