{link » Two wrongs don't make a right}
Simple logic dictates that "two wrongs make a right" is a fallacy, which occurs when it is assumed that if one wrong is committed, another wrong will cancel it out. Nevertheless, even the most judicious discourse as well as the most well-intentioned human actions are frequently governed by emotional disregard of this logical fallacy.
In the ivy-entwined ivory towers where mental masturbation is the principal activity, such a logical fallacy is seldom transgressed. But in the real world of death, destruction, and willful ignorance this logical fallacy has been transmogrified into its visceral twin — vengeance. In the real world, vengeance trumps logic.
And yet, a few brave souls can always be counted on to persevere in the hope that man's baser instincts can be finessed by a compromise, namely: Two wrongs don't make a right, necessarily. And, for all I know, this departure from the absolute proscription may be close enough to the absolute truth to be worthy of consideration. But one thing I do know with mathematical certainty: Two wrongs always make two wrongs. You can quote me on that.
I have had a discussion with a friend concerning a current topic of major concern. He is of the opinion that making a sympathetic statement about non-combatants on one side of a conflict does not cancel his sympathetic stance on the other side's right of self defense. He is, of course, absolutely correct. What I was not able to make him understand, however, was that I wasn't trying to refute his stated position.
The point I was trying to make, unsuccessfully, is that both his sympathetic statement concerning non-combatants of one side, and his sympathetic stance in support of the other side's right of self defense are by nature not only humanistic but also political. And consequently, not only do both his humanistic sympathies survive critical scrutiny, so do both of the political implications.
It is not valid to claim both that: (a) neither humanistic position cancels the other (true); and (b) one political implication is nullified by the other (false). Ethical readers will most likely agree with both humanistic sympathies. Political readers, however, will agree with the political implication they favor and repudiate the one they don't.
Simple logic dictates that "two wrongs make a right" is a fallacy, which occurs when it is assumed that if one wrong is committed, another wrong will cancel it out. Nevertheless, even the most judicious discourse as well as the most well-intentioned human actions are frequently governed by emotional disregard of this logical fallacy.
In the ivy-entwined ivory towers where mental masturbation is the principal activity, such a logical fallacy is seldom transgressed. But in the real world of death, destruction, and willful ignorance this logical fallacy has been transmogrified into its visceral twin — vengeance. In the real world, vengeance trumps logic.
And yet, a few brave souls can always be counted on to persevere in the hope that man's baser instincts can be finessed by a compromise, namely: Two wrongs don't make a right, necessarily. And, for all I know, this departure from the absolute proscription may be close enough to the absolute truth to be worthy of consideration. But one thing I do know with mathematical certainty: Two wrongs always make two wrongs. You can quote me on that.
I have had a discussion with a friend concerning a current topic of major concern. He is of the opinion that making a sympathetic statement about non-combatants on one side of a conflict does not cancel his sympathetic stance on the other side's right of self defense. He is, of course, absolutely correct. What I was not able to make him understand, however, was that I wasn't trying to refute his stated position.
The point I was trying to make, unsuccessfully, is that both his sympathetic statement concerning non-combatants of one side, and his sympathetic stance in support of the other side's right of self defense are by nature not only humanistic but also political. And consequently, not only do both his humanistic sympathies survive critical scrutiny, so do both of the political implications.
It is not valid to claim both that: (a) neither humanistic position cancels the other (true); and (b) one political implication is nullified by the other (false). Ethical readers will most likely agree with both humanistic sympathies. Political readers, however, will agree with the political implication they favor and repudiate the one they don't.
No comments:
Post a Comment