Two Wrongs Don't Make A Right

It is nice to get the chance to examine a common proverb and see if it truly holds. I think, and will now show, that it does. IntroductionAs my opponent pointed out by his concern over semantics, the word "right" has many meanings. Given the context of the word's use in the resolution, and my opponent's use of the term, I think it best to use the first noun definition from Merriam-Webster:qualities (as adherence to duty or obedience to lawful authority) that together constitute the ideal of moral propriety or merit moral approval . http://www.merriam-webster.com...That is, a "right" or doing right is opposite of a "wrong" or doing wrong. So, what we are really talking about is qualities (or behaviors) that are moral, or are just. I trust my opponent will not think I'm playing semantics, as this seems to be the definition he has been using. There are many different definitions of justice (for review: . http://en.wikipedia.org...) but they have in common that any given thing can be either just or unjust. This is the part that is important for my argument, so I will not take a particular position on which definition of justice is right, only that they all classify things as just or unjust. If my opponent wishes to pick one to work from, I am happy to use it in the final round. RebuttalWith that out of the way, I will move on to my opponent's argument. He makes a great error in his understanding of what makes something right or wrong. He seems to equate action with purpose. The distinction between just actions and just purposes is not new; it's been around at least since the writing of Plato's Republic (. http://www.bu.edu...). It is only by this conflation of action and purpose that my opponent purports to show that two wrongs can make a right. My opponent begins by stating that stabbing someone is wrong. I reject this premise (as would Plato, and Kant . http://en.wikipedia.org...). A surgeon who stabs someone is not doing a wrong, nor or the woman in my opponent's example. This is because stabbing is not wrong, it is the purpose for which the stabbing was done that makes the stabbing a right or a wrong. Self defense is a just action, as is performing surgery. Murder is an unjust action, as is assault. My opponent attempts to use his parable to show that two wrongs make a right, but he has not shown two wrongs. Rather, he has shown one wrong (the attack) and one right (the defensive stabbing). So, yes, I will concede that if there is a wrong and a right, then there is a right. This is very different than saying if there is a wrong and another wrong, there is a right. Let's examine how there might be two wrongs in that situation. Suppose that Cindy is white and the attacker black, and suppose that Cindy does not have a weapon when she is attacked. Consequently she is assaulted and raped. This is the first wrong. The next day, Cindy buys a knife and returns to the scene of the rape. She hides between cars and waits for a black man to walk by, at which point she jumps out and stabs him to death. This is the second wrong. It is possible that Cindy feels she has gotten some vengeance by stabbing someone else. She may feel less victimized by the power she gets killing an innocent person, but neither of these make it a right. This is the situation that the phrase "two wrongs don't make a right" refers to. It only applies, when, indeed, both actions are wrong. 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. ArgumentActions are neither right nor wrong, only purposes can be. An action taken for a particular purpose is either right or wrong, it cannot be both. The addition of a wrong to a wrong can never make a right. If the second action is right, then it is right -- not wrong. The fact that context matters in determining whether an action is right or wrong does not change a wrong into a right. Rather, the second actions was right to begin with. Consider the possibility that the actions were in reverse order. What if Cindy stabbed the burly man first, but not so bad that he might die? While he was standing in the parking lot bleeding, he overpowered Cindy, took the knife, and then raped her. By my opponent's logic this rape should make the stabbing justified, since the same two actions summed to a right some how. Anyone can see that this is preposterous. What made Cindy's action just was that it was a stabbing in defense, not the rape itself. Consequently any action (in context) is either right or wrong. Adding another wrong can never make a wrong right. The proposition "two wrongs don't make a right," must be affirmed.