Do two wrongs make a right?

I basically have a dilemma here. I believe in absolute morality--that the ends do not justify the means--and there are actions that seperate us from God, or mortal sins. But now the question is what if you have to commit these deeds to help the oppressed? Take for instance Robin Hood. Not the historic one who is not so saintly, but the legendary one, where the rulers unfairly tax the poor to the point they are starving. You could say that money has been stolen from them with unfair taxes, and they're in poverty and starvation. If you do not act, they will die. On the other hand, stealing is also wrong. It is also wrong to do. Suppose if you also believed in moral absolutes, is the second action justifiable? One imperitive is to help the poor, but the other imperative is to not steal, but you have no way of helping the poor without breaking the latter imperative. If it was only you starving you could not steal and die, therefore not disobeying any imperative, which would be preferable to going to hell for breaking those imperatives.

Suppose you believed in absolutes too. How would you resolve this dilemna? Do you remind the oppressed that they are probably going to heaven for all their suffering? Or do you take it upon yourself to steal and help them?

reply to post by 547000


Excellent thread, put it this way, would you follow Jesus' turn the cheek principle so people can take advantage of you, or would you follow Hammurabi's code when they say an eye for an eye. It's just something to think about it =D

reply to post by 547000


Well I do know that three vectors going north that end up changing velocity by a factor of 90 degrees counterclockwise 3 times consecutively ends up with you going east.

I'm afraid there is no objective answer to your dilemma. What it truly comes down to is what do you feel in the moment, and how do you think it will impact your future. If both appear to be very positive, then one would take a guess in saying it was the "correct" choice

"But now the question is what if you have to commit these deeds to help the oppressed?" That's good. But stealing is wrong, especially when the intention is to lie about stealing. Now that damn wrong!

The question remains: Would you feed your children stolen food? There is a saying that children fed on stolen food will turn out bad: And so the cycle continues...

Then again, I answered my own questions. Even monkeys and elephants steal from humans. So I guess it's okay because that's the way nature intended --- to survive.

Originally posted by pikypiky
Even monkeys and elephants steal from humans. So I guess it's okay because that's the way nature intended --- to survive.

Excellent point.

Is not letting a child starve to death akin to murder if stealing could avert the situation?



S&F

Originally posted by OccamAssassin

Originally posted by pikypiky
Even monkeys and elephants steal from humans. So I guess it's okay because that's the way nature intended --- to survive.

Excellent point.

Is not letting a child starve to death akin to murder if stealing could avert the situation?

In a world of abundance, there is no excuse to allow death by starvation. I cannot emphasize enough that stealing is not good. It's immoral and illegal, by the way. Sometimes asking akin to begging for food may be the only alternative, if stealing will lead to murder.

The whole of earth is was created for us, one people. All that it contains is for us, to have to steal so what is rightfully yours in the first place is morally wrong but the greater evil is to have more than you need and to see others go without from your greed. The problem here is an understanding of how we should be living with one another and how we see our possesions to be ours and no one elses. If you have something that someone else would benefit from and your not using it should you offer it or should you hold onto it yourself for the future which is a form of greed in itself.
To answer the question of should you steal, the answer is no you shouldn't, you know that it will take you from your positive path. Those that are further from you are drawing you to their negative place by the actions you take against them. So no two wrongs don't make a right.

reply to post by 547000


I have found the people who deal in absolutes are always liars. And are fringe type people that need to be lead to find any real path in life. They bounce from one thing to another trying to find what is missing.


Religions of all kinds are filled with them.

Originally posted by Subjective Truth
reply to post by 547000

 

I have found the people who deal in absolutes are always liars. And are fringe type people that need to be lead to find any real path in life. They bounce from one thing to another trying to find what is missing.


Religions of all kinds are filled with them.

Uh, thank you for calling me a liar with no sense of direction.

No, I have found my path. No plans on changing it.

Interesting post, but I have to ask do two rights make a wrong? Apparently if all you do is right, it might be wrong to someone else, because they might get the "wrong" impression that your trying to be better than them.

reply to post by KonquestAbySS


It is true that some may perceive that but a truly positve person should be able to see this happening and be able to diffuse the negative they see coming from someone else by supplying that person with positive energy and understanding. A truly positive person would be brought back to a negative place if he/she didn't see that their actions/thoughts were negatively affecting those around them.

It is okay to take food if you are truly hungry and are in need of food, as long as no one is hurt in the process, and it is not done out of malice. God knows the heart, so He knows ones intentions when they do something like that. In fact, the Bible does talk about this subject:

Matthew 12:1-7(KJV)
1At that time Jesus went on the sabbath day through the corn; and his disciples were an hungred, and began to pluck the ears of corn and to eat.
2But when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto him, Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath day.
3But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred, and they that were with him;
4How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the shewbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests?
5Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless?

David and the young men who were with him were hungry, so David went into the temple and told the priest to give him the shewbread so they could eat. The bread was meant only for the priests, therefore it was generally known to be a sin and a crime for anyone other than the priests to eat it. Jesus used this example to explain that even though this food was "forbidden", under the circumstances, it was excusable for David and the people with him to eat the bread. (Read 1 Samuel 21 for the story of when David at the shewbread: www.biblegateway.com... )

When I read your title I was thinking this was going to be about Democrats and republicans Hmmm Robin Hood, steal from the rich to feed the poor or is it KARMA when you steal from theives? Now that's the riddle.An eye for an eye does not make ye blind it makes you focused.You only need one eye to focus down a telescopic rifle sight! True or false ? Copyright mine

Are you looking for a spiritual answer?

My opinion, unwelcome though it may be is "No."

Two wrongs do not make a right. There is never a time when lying is valid. Stealing is still stealing, no matter why you do it.

We spend a lot of time justifying why we should be allowed to make wrong right, but in the end the only one's who get their way are the one's who believe that they 'should' be allowed to apply their notion of 'divine lies' and 'ends justifies the means' philosophy to life. Ultimately ensuring that pain and inequity are spread around, rather than eliminated.

Is it practicable? That's another matter entirely.

Right and wrong are finite relative concepts based on perspective. Every action can be justified one way or another and every action is appropriate for that person's development.

reply to post by Maxmars


I'm in a real conundrum, concerning what political stance I should have. Though I am religious I consider myself to be a libertarian. I had resigned myself to the idea that the world will never see the truth of the gospel, and so we cannot force them, and let them suffer the consequences of their actions. People talk about social freedom as important, so I extended that belief to economic freedom, because it is self-consistent and often the prevaling social dogma is based on envy and a disrespect for the property rights of others. Because of this freedom principle, although I disagree with social liberals on things like gay marriage having no moral consequence and abortion of fetuses is not murder, I support their right to do so; and although I feel charity and helping the poor to be good things, I support an individual's right to self-determination. Basically the view is, let the damned be damned because the world has to, inevitably, reberl against godly ways. Basically, accepting evil as something inevitable that we must personally avoid, though we cannot fight it and have to leave to judgement of God.

On the other hand there is the view that we must actively combat evil, not just resist it and hope people will wake up. But then with this view, the freedom principle is voided, because to fight evil you have to take away the choice of individuals to commit evil and to punish those who are commiting evil. This means to be self-consistent you must always support certain values, like standing against abortion or against greed of individuals. This is a no compromise position: either follow godly ways or get out.

On one hand you have the view of "turn the other cheek", on the other hand you have the view that society should be just and that the government should fight evil, even if a minority disagrees with your basic ideas of good or evil.

I am looking for a way to resolve hypocrisy and cowardice.

Originally posted by 547000
reply to post by Maxmars

 

I'm honored that you would want to discuss this with me. I agree it is a quandary. But such matters can be resolved depending on your convictions, to a great degree.

First and foremost, please forgive me if I seem pretentious or too forward; as I certainly I mean no disrespect.

I'm in a real conundrum, concerning what political stance I should have.

The most important thing to cling to is that no one should force a decision upon you. You are free to make such choices as to political affinity In your good time. Caution about the word "stance" could be needed here. For in such matters of civic consciousness the notion implies that you have something to defend or combat. The adversarial elements of this decision are unavoidable, but shouldn't be 'begged' into existence either.

Though I am religious I consider myself to be a libertarian. I had resigned myself to the idea that the world will never see the truth of the gospel, and so we cannot force them, and let them suffer the consequences of their actions.

Let's pretend that we are in agreement on certain things, such as how religion and governance are, in fact, two completely separate matters - that one should not necessarily compel you to make a choice which restricts your freedoms, or forces you to accept ideological baggage those who claim to agree insist on 'adding' to the mix.

I will risk presuming that you are a traditionalist conservative who believes that the principles of our form of government, as it was established, are genuinely timeless. (In this I would agree) I must also risk that you are a rational Christian, as opposed to someone who is entrenched in doctrines which have been more or less imposed on the church.

With the aforementioned in mind, I would say that the responsibility of the faithful is to be good witnesses, by whose example others may be attracted to question what it means to live a good life. The uniqueness of Christianity manifests itself in atypical tolerance for the non-believer (which other religions automatically regard as 'enemies') whereas the older Abrahamaic sects are all for considering everyone outside their faith as profane and worthy of indifference at best, or hostile scorn at worst. The Christ's way was one of mercy and compassion; which most doctrines seem to regard as a weakness.

People talk about social freedom as important, so I extended that belief to economic freedom, because it is self-consistent and often the prevaling social dogma is based on envy and a disrespect for the property rights of others.

The self-evidence of certain matters, particularly personal freedom, was the foundation of the rejection of governance by decree, hereditary rule and other such models of government which do not recognize the mandate of the people as the prime driver of a viable system. The consent of the governed is crucial to the success of government, so much so that government strive to 'manufacture' that consent by means of indoctrination, deception, and fabricated perils from which only a government can protect us.

"Property" is problematic. Even your faith recognizes that. The notion that an object which is not part of you, nor comes into or out of existence by your hand can be considered 'yours' in perpetuity caused a great deal of grief between peoples, especially the aboriginal occupants who felt that no logic can defend the idea that land could not be 'owned' by anyone.

Freedom (which in our latter-day manifestation of consumerist capitalism has become 'feedom') is the concept of any being acting without unnatural constraint. Society is established with an understanding that freedom is only possible in a community if all honor the value of that freedom conceptually so that it extends to everyone. Insofar as their property is concerned you must extend elements of that freedom to their property as well.

Because of this freedom principle, although I disagree with social liberals on things like gay marriage having no moral consequence and abortion of fetuses is not murder, I support their right to do so; and although I feel charity and helping the poor to be good things, I support an individual's right to self-determination. Basically the view is, let the damned be damned because the world has to, inevitably, reberl against godly ways. Basically, accepting evil as something inevitable that we must personally avoid, though we cannot fight it and have to leave to judgement of God.

You are free to express your concerns regarding the outcomes and effects of moral turpitude. However, you must recognize that you're moral concerns, if they are driven by dogma, cannot be universal. Mankind has always manifested the gift of choice, sometimes to our benefit, often to our dismay. Unless we receive a mandate from God to force compliance of the unwilling, what can we do? Accepting that 'free will' is God's most precious gift to mankind, you must wonder if he would then, having given it, required men to suppress it. Many feel they have 'answered' this mystery by way of common doctrine, dogmatic interpretation, or even infallible decree. In the end the mystery remains. God made man free to sin. There has to be a reason for that. Perhaps it is because only God can judge; and our attempts to be like him, or to win his favor, are vain and often misplaced.

On the other hand there is the view that we must actively combat evil, not just resist it and hope people will wake up. But then with this view, the freedom principle is voided, because to fight evil you have to take away the choice of individuals to commit evil and to punish those who are commiting evil. This means to be self-consistent you must always support certain values, like standing against abortion or against greed of individuals. This is a no compromise position: either follow godly ways or get out.

Very astutely dissembled! And clearly true. How to reconcile the apparent incongruity is a challenge; one all are free to engage; although many simply choose to follow the most alluring and charismatic leader and demand that he or she is "right" where others are "wrong." And therein lies a hint to the solution. Is right always "good" and is wrong always "evil?" It might be better if instead of fighting evil we dedicated ourselves to fight injustice or suffering... but that is not how those who lust for followers ever couch the core of their ideals.

As a way of example, I offer this; I need no bible, no book of morals, no special spiritual guide to tell me how I feel about abortion. I know how I feel. Whether that is right or wrong is irrelevant. The feeling comes from within me. It is not imposed upon me by argument, or logic, or an endless series of tragic examples or glorious success stories. based upon that feeling I may express my position. However, may I enforce my opinion? Does anyone accurately declare themselves to have the right to enforce their opinion? Some say yes. Some say no.

It's the role of society to embrace both positions, because communities cannot be expected to exists in perpetual conflict, nor would perfectly synchronized emotions lead to anything other than decay. Let's say you and I vehemently disagree (we probably don't) about this. Should I launch into an aggressive diatribe about my position, and you yours? Should I characterize your view as evil, and you likewise mine? Would such an engagement lead to compromise? Unlikely. Once you begin to compromise on morals, the morals themselves become a shadowy mockery of what they were born as.... a feeling from our hearts. We must be able to coexist, even in conflict, lest we destroy the things which make us each individuals. To do so removes freedom, and imposes a constraint on our persons....

On one hand you have the view of "turn the other cheek", on the other hand you have the view that society should be just and that the government should fight evil, even if a minority disagrees with your basic ideas of good or evil.

Society is not a citizen. Culture is not a citizen. Ideology is not a citizen. People are. We expect and desire the constructs and institutions of our society to engender justice and equality, freedom and prosperity. These things cannot be achieved by a citizen alone. The entire society must believe and respect the goal. This is not always so. Fighting evil, resisting the baser nature of vainglory, avaricious greed, obscene materialism, and cruel rejection of our fellow man are things that constructs of society can face. People who, for reasons of their own, transgress the boundaries of another persons or people's freedom only face the obstacles our society puts in place... since we are all free to be as destructive, selfish, and cruel as we can imagine.

I am looking for a way to resolve hypocrisy and cowardice.

The struggle against hypocritical conduct is dangerous, because we are all subject to the same temptations and frailties as everyone else. What we may call hypocrisy may be based on a value system that we embrace, not the target of our accusation. To them, the accuser could very well be the hypocrite. For example there are institutions both religious, and political, that hold to the position that lying is essential for success. They demand that lies can be 'good,' 'patriotic,' or even 'sacred.' These precepts are responsible for the worst forms of abuse of authority, fraud, and injustice in human history.

You and I may disagree on what cowardice really is. As long as you are willing to entertain the thoughts of others, ask questions, and face the answers, you needn't fear cowardice. Cowardice is mostly an expression of self-deprecation, refusing to honor what you really believe. Cowardice is often the way of those who believe expedience is more important than substance. Cowards likes to cast their failures as 'compromises' which is sort of ironic, because compromise can often be a very great form of bravery.

Thank you for reading this, and I hope I haven't strayed too far from what you wanted to discuss.

reply to post by 547000


Well it says in the Bible that if one is starving and has no food that if they steal they will be pitied but not excused and have to compensate in some way.

"Men do not despise a thief if he steal to satisfy his soul when he is hungry"

Proverbs 6:30

Hmmm really simplistically here..

1. one idiot/criminal/child molester/politician shoots someone who dies from the wound later, thats a wrong. If the one shot person is also an idiot/criminal/child molester/politician ( a wrong in itself) and shoots the other one and he dies at the scene. Thats a wrong.
2. A guy does a drive by and kills a child in his moms front yard. Thats a wrong. The father of the child hunts down and blows his childs killer away. Thats a wrong.
Somehow those sets of 2 wrongs make me feel all RIGHT.... am I too immoral or "ungodly" for seeing the justice and rightness in a set of wrongs?


IMO there is no hard and fast rule on rights and wrongs since so much is not based on some iron clad cosmic law ( or for the religious.. what displeases its deity with no absolutely thought to man-made concepts of morality/law... even the lofty Christians can handle that), but rather by culture.... and that cultures man-made laws and human ideas of morality. I just had an in your face slap in the chops incident with culture this week, and even though Im old and ( ahem.. *chuckle*) oh so wise... I find myself redefining what I see as a clear line of right and wrong almost continually in each unique and individual situation. Maybe an omniscient being is by its nature given to okay making sweeping judgments concerning rights and wrongs with no grey areas.. but Im not so assured of my own capabilities to know all in clear black and white... or any fallible human being's capabilities of it for that matter. Ill leave that to deities and continue striving for humility and understanding.

reply to post by Maxmars


Thank you for your response.

By cowardice I mean not standing up for your convictions. I admit I am currently a bit of a coward, because I keep many of my convictions to myself, and I also believe that evil is unconquerable except through God, but it's really a combination of the two. I stand up for people's rights to their property, because of the freedom principle, and because I read a few books on economics and they made a good case for economic freedom. Yet at the same time we are meant to help the poor. On one hand you are defending greed, on the other hand envy. I believe people own their property and coveting it is also bad. It's often rich vs poor, and we are charged to help the poor, but yet I find it awful to side with envy. There is far more demonization of the rich than there is of the poor, which is expected because the rich are a minority. So I find myself unable to side in my heart with the masses in many cases, especially when it's coupled with envy and outright bigoted hatred of the rich. But then that turns a blind eye to greed. In an ideal society the rich would give freely to the poor. So it's like whichever side I support in any issue, I am supporting an evil, whether it's coveting what others have, or not being generous to the poor. Neither are the rich innocent nor are the poor. Supporting either one is ignoring the evils of the other.