Two Wrongs Don't Make A Right

Thanks to my opponent for his prompt response. First of all let me make one thing clear, I said "It is widely accepted that it is wrong to stab people." This means that in most cases or often times, it is wrong to stab someone. Stabbing carries with it a negative connotation. I used "widely accepted" for a reason. If you were to approach a number of people and ask them plainly "is stabbing people wrong" most of them would reply yes. Which affirms my point that stabbing people is widely accepted to be wrong. My opponent rejecting my premise doesn't matter much, if any. My opponent attempted to debunk my example by reversing the order in which things happened, but this changes my example completely because now Cindy had no viable reason to launch a preemptive strike on the man. He then says "By my opponent's logic this rape should make the stabbing justified, since the same two actions summed to a right some how." This is completely different from the scenario I presented. Why would the stabbing be justified if there was nothing that warranted the stabbing in the first place? In my opponent's scenario, there really wasn't a right, it was wrong for Cindy to stab the man first, wrong for the man to rape Cindy, and wrong for Cindy to stab a black man to death the next day. The only thing my opponent succeeded in doing was forming his own completely different scenario, and then trying applying my logic to it. It is blatantly obvious that this doesn't make any sense; my logic was meant for my scenario, not his new one with different variables. Debunking examples doesn't matter much so I will now go straight to my opponent's main argument and rebut that, as this is what really matters. I was almost sure my opponent would take the stance that he did, so I'm well prepared to defend my stance. I looked through his source and could not find the exact definition that he provided, so just for clarification I will provide one here. Right: morally good, justified, or acceptable (6) Purpose: the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists (2) Intention: a thing intended; an aim or plan (3) The two words purpose and intention are very interchangeable and essentially mean the same thing (4, 5). I hope my opponent will not attempt to refute times where I might use one word in place of the other. My opponent says that "Actions are neither right nor wrong, only purposes can be." This statement is false. For example people who steal because they do not have, or to be more specific a person who robs a bank because he needs money for his mother's surgery, the purpose here is to save his mother's life. His purpose is a righteous one; certainly it is good for one to save their mother's life. Robbing the bank is the action, and saving his mother's life is the purpose. Now can we say that it was right for him to rob the bank? No we cannot. I will delve into this even further, let's say in the process of robbing the bank, people get hurt, and some people actually die, but he never meant to kill those people, it was never his purpose to do so. So was it right for him to rob the bank? No it was not. By robbing the bank he quite possible put many people in poverty, caused a few suicides, along with many other ill results such as severe mental trauma and depression, not to mention the deaths that occurred while he robbed the bank. I contend that purposes alone do not determine whether actions are right or wrong, but rather the result of the action that determines such. I am not saying that result is always the only deciding factor, but rather showing that the result can be the sole factor in determining whether the action was right or wrong, or it could be the combination of purpose and result, or some other reason. Having good/bad intentions alone does not make an action right/wrong. Thus why we see such laws in our society that punish regardless of intent. An example being involuntary manslaughter, where there is no purpose/intent to kill but a death resulted none the less (1). Everything I have presented still affirms my point that two wrongs can indeed make a right. The right (result of action) is a factor that can make a wrong, a right. If you take the positive result of the action away, or you change the positive result into a negative one, then the action still remains as a wrong one. Of course this will not hold true in every example but it will hold true in some if not many. It probably doesn't even hold true in the scenario I first presented. Remove the result: Cindy escaping rape and murder, this of course does not mean that Cindy was not right in stabbing her attacker. My scenario was a mere example to help shine light on my point. I chose that scenario so it could be further expounded on, and an interesting debate would result of such. Further examples in favor of my point: In the series "Watchmen" a nuclear war was imminent between the U.S.A. and the Soviet Union. This war was seemingly unavoidable and there was no way to come to a peaceful resolution, many people were going to die as a result of this war. Ozymandias (character from the Watchmen series) devised a plan in which he created a biologically engineered creature made from the same energy signature as Dr. Manhattan (immensely powerful superhero that emits radiation). He detonated the bomb in New York, leveling a big chunk of the city, as well as killing millions of people. The explosion and radiation from the explosion was analyzed and it was determined to be the very same energy emitted by Dr. Manhattan so of course he was blamed for the incident. Both the U.S. and the Soviet Union now saw Dr. Manhattan as a huge threat, so they set their differences aside and teamed up in a conjoined effort to stop him. This was the plan of Ozymandias all along, and clearly the plan worked. As a direct result of blowing up NY he caused plenty of collateral damage, killed millions of people, and ruined Dr. Manhattan's reputation and chance of living peaceably on Earth. However, the overall result was him saving billions of lives (7). His purpose was a righteous one, but if his plan had failed, and the nuclear war persisted anyways, then the purpose would not have been sufficient enough to declare Ozymandias as right. His actions would have been wrong because the end result of his plan was not a positive/right one; no viable good occurred from him killing millions of people and destroying NY. For those who watch the anime Code Geass, a very similar thing took place, but I will not waste characters explaining this, since essentially the same thing happened (8). My opponent has even agreed with me that "My opponent has only shown that some actions that are often done for wrong, can be right in certain contexts -- a point I will happily concede." The result of an action definitely falls into the context of the action. If the result of the action is wrong, then the action is almost often times wrong, regardless of the initial purpose of the action. Also if the result is right, then the action can be right, regardless of the purpose of action. The end result can determine whether the action was right or wrong. The result must manifest itself to fully determine whether the action was right or wrong. I have effectively rebutted my opponent, and upheld my stances, please vote Con. I thank my opponent for an excellent and enjoyable debate. Good show old chap :) Sources: 1. http://criminal-law.freeadvice.com... 2. http://oxforddictionaries.com... 3. http://oxforddictionaries.com... 4. http://thesaurus.com... 5. http://thesaurus.com... 6. http://oxforddictionaries.com... 7. http://en.wikipedia.org...(comics) 8. http://en.wikipedia.org...