Talk:Two wrongs don't make a right/Archive 1

message: Anybody object if I change the name of "President Johnson". It could imply that LBJ lied to congress; whether he may or may not have done isn't the subject of this page?
Grobertson 10:47, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Somebody might want to consider reorganizing this under the entry 'tu quoque,' which is the more-accepted and better-known name for this kind of faulty reasoning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.231.17.226 (talk) 16:53, 11 February 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: President Johnson

message: Why is it rarely mentioned that "eye for an eye" is an extension of this fallacy? Also, it's objectively true that two wrongs do not make a right. Wronging someone because they wronged you just means that both people are, overall, hurt. There is little or no beneficiary factor here to over-ride this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.124.23.45 (talk • contribs) 21:49, 5 March 2007
:An eye for an eye is not a logical fallacy.  It is merely a moral, or legal position that one might take.  
:"John poked out Fred's eye.  Therefore, it is just/fair, that Fred should poke out John's eye as retribution/retaliation." 
:One may argue with the moral validity of this statement.  And one may claim that this is not a sound basis for the creation of laws.  But the statement is not logically inconsistent.  
:In fact, many laws are based on the premise that "an eye for an eye" creates an effective deterent, and also preserves a sense of justice that will discourage anarchy and arbitrary retaliation.
:If John knows that poking out Fred's eye will result in him having his own eye poked out, then he will be less likely to poke out Fred's eye.  And surely that is a good thing.  Of course, in order for the threat of "an eye for an eye" to be an effective deterent, it must be carried out.  So although the punishment of John, may not produce a social good in and of itself, this act may discourage other crimes, and thus serves the greater good.  Neither of the people who have been injured are any better off (arguably), but society as a whole could well be the beneficiary.
:In many cases, an eye for an eye is in the greater good.  From the narrow perspective of the two people invovled, it is merely two wrongs.  But from the wider social perspective, the second wrong contributes to the overal good, so it has helped make things write.  Sometimes two wrongs do make right. Northern Bear 15:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You two are engaging in logical fallacy yourselves. Taking someone's eye out without due process of law may be a wrong, but that does not make all eye-poking-out wrong. We tolerate courts' doing many things we would not permit private citizens to do - confinement, forced transfer of money, and execution. 70.146.15.172 01:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To say that something is a logical falacy means that it is self contradictory.  There is nothing self contradictory about the statement "It is just to poke someone's eye in retaliation for an eye poking."  You may not agree with the statement.  But there is nothing about the statement itself that is self contradictory.  Hence it is not a fallacy.  Northern Bear 14:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that's not what a logical fallacy is. A logical fallacy is an apparent argument where the conclusion does not follow from the premises. The fallacy at issue here is assuming that "It is wrong to take someone's eye" is an absolute prohibition, rather than "It is wrong to take someone's eye unless done under the sanction of law." Think about it this way. It is wrong to confine someone against his will, right? But then prison is confinement against one's will. It is wrong to take money under duress. But when a court enters a judgment, it does just that. The fallacy is failing to take account of the implicit assumption of the rules against harming other people - because all punishment and all civil damages are harmful to the one punished or to the one who must satisfy the judgment. You don't know what fallacy is, so you might not want to embarrass yourself any further here. 72.144.68.227 20:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "An eye for an eye" is not a logical fallacy.  It is simply a statement of opinion or belief.  When someone says "I believe in an eye for an eye", all they are saying is "I believe that it is fair for criminals to be punished by receiving the same harm that they have inflicted."  You may not agree with that belief.  But because it is a belief, it can not be a logical fallacy.  Opinion are not fallacies.  An "eye for an eye", is no more a logical fallacy than is the statement "Star Wars is better than Star Trek."  You can disagree with an opinion.  But you can not claim somebody's opinion is a logical fallacy, unless the statement is somehow inherently contradictory ("star wars is better than star wars").  An eye for an eye is a matter of personal opinion/belief/outlook, and the statement of that belief is not self contradictory.  Therefore, it can not be a logical fallacy.  Northern Bear 18:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

text: When your entire argument rests on a fallacy, then yes, it's invalid. Do you know what a fallacy is? 72.144.68.227 20:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Treating someone as they treat others is not a logical fallacy. That is a logical extention of the Golden Rule. If James blinds John, he obviously does not respect John's sight, so why should John respect his sight? It is only a logical fallacy if you believe violence is fundamentally wrong rather than neutral.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.29.64.37 (talk) 22:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eye for an eye 

message: Hello,
I wrote the following reference:
* U2 wrote "Angry words won't stop the fight, Two wrongs won't make it right " in "Like A Song" in War album
but it have been removed. why ?
What's wrong ? I did made something wrong ? it's just a citation, a reference. (note I'm not native english speaker) 82.228.207.5 12:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry if the removal was puzzling. The reason for this is that this article is about logical fallacies. The information about a U2 song lyric fragment does not add any information about logical fallacies. If this new information belongs in an article, then it would probably be in a music article, not this one. I hope that explanation helps, I should have perhaps considered making a comment on the talkpage at the time I removed the material. If this is still unclear, by all means contact this editor, on the Talkpage link shown here, and I will be glad to explain further, and sorry for the misunderstanding. — User:-Newbyguesses - Talk 21:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  no problem, thank for the explanation. it's true it does not add any information. Myself I love interaction between area, it helps to discover things, but that's ok. regards.82.228.207.5 17:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference removed ? 

message: Treating someone how they treat others. Isn't that just the flip side of the Golden Rule.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.29.64.37 (talk) 22:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  How do you wrong a wrongdoer? 

message: The phrase "two wrongs (don't) make a right" is used for even when "speaker 2" obliviously did not imply that the presidents were "right."
What "two wrongs don't make a right" actually means is that it doesn't even matter if someone else did the "wrong" as well.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.183.79.69 (talk) 08:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure if this is written in the article. Nor sure if there is appropriate references. 77.193.112.189 (talk) 14:03, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  An Exaggeration