Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Dark Jedi · 06-17-2002, 06:36 AM

I was just thinking: Are there instances where two wrongs cancel each other out for a greater right?

Hypothetical scenario: The particular gene sequence for sexual orientation is found, and can be altered at will in an adult human being.
If someone were to alter Fred Phelps to make him an exclusive homosexual for a time to let him experience the natural urges in spite of his teachings, thus showing him the error of his convictions (As if, but it's my scenario, I can make the outcome I want!). Then they alter him back leaving no residual.
Is this an acceptable situation where 2 wrongs (Fred's original attitude plus the forceful alteration)make a right (Fred now tolerant of people different than himself)?

rebelnerd · 06-17-2002, 11:03 AM

Anything that would make Fred Phelps a human being would be right.

Filo

echidna · 06-17-2002, 03:49 PM

Are you taking up a collection ?

I was also thinking about alteration of skin pigmentation genes for KKK members.

Boro Nut · 06-18-2002, 03:31 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dark Jedi:
possibility of 2 wrongs make a right

It never ceases to amaze me that this old misquotation still persists. If you read the original RAC drivers handbook again it clearly says 'Three Lefts', not 'two wrongs'.

Boro Nut

brighid · 06-18-2002, 04:34 AM

An individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law.

Martin Luther King

Huginn · 06-18-2002, 05:29 AM

This is assuming that Fred Phelps isn't homosexual anyway.

Dark Jedi · 06-18-2002, 07:11 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Huginn:
This is assuming that Fred Phelps isn't homosexual anyway.

I wasn't going to go there, for the integrity of the scenario.

As one person said many moons ago: "That guy needs a man something awful."

Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ · 06-19-2002, 10:03 PM

Well, I think getting him liquored up, finding a nice man whose willing to take care of him (

), a cheap motel room, and a video camera will have a greater effect.

scigirl · 06-20-2002, 02:39 PM

Jedi,

Interesting question. I say, "No it isn't right."

I believe that our freedom from unwanted intrusion into our bodies supercedes any public benefit (with very few exceptions - perhaps quarantining someone with e bola). If we don't have the freedom to have our bodies be left alone, than we don't have anything!

scigirl

scigirl · 06-20-2002, 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by brighid:
An individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law.

Martin Luther King

I'm not so sure this is the same thing. But maybe it is.

If you break a law that is unjust, than you are not doing anything wrong (the law is wrong, not you).

However in Jedi's example, he is asking whether doing something that we believe is wrong is justified because the outcome may be good.

To me they are similar, but separate examples.

06-17-2002, 06:36 AM	#1
Dark Jedi Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Afghanistan Posts: 4,666	possibility of 2 wrongs make a right? I was just thinking: Are there instances where two wrongs cancel each other out for a greater right? Hypothetical scenario: The particular gene sequence for sexual orientation is found, and can be altered at will in an adult human being. If someone were to alter Fred Phelps to make him an exclusive homosexual for a time to let him experience the natural urges in spite of his teachings, thus showing him the error of his convictions (As if, but it's my scenario, I can make the outcome I want!). Then they alter him back leaving no residual. Is this an acceptable situation where 2 wrongs (Fred's original attitude plus the forceful alteration)make a right (Fred now tolerant of people different than himself)?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-17-2002, 11:03 AM	#2
rebelnerd Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: 47°30'27" North, 122°20'51" West - Folding@Home Posts: 600	Anything that would make Fred Phelps a human being would be right. Filo

06-17-2002, 03:49 PM	#3
echidna Veteran Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 2,832	Are you taking up a collection ? I was also thinking about alteration of skin pigmentation genes for KKK members.

06-18-2002, 04:34 AM	#5
brighid Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: somewhere in the known Universe Posts: 6,993	An individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law. Martin Luther King

06-18-2002, 05:29 AM	#6
Huginn Veteran Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: Lincoln, England Posts: 1,499	This is assuming that Fred Phelps isn't homosexual anyway.

06-19-2002, 10:03 PM	#8
Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Heaven Posts: 6,980	Well, I think getting him liquored up, finding a nice man whose willing to take care of him ( ), a cheap motel room, and a video camera will have a greater effect.

06-20-2002, 02:39 PM	#9
scigirl Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Seattle Posts: 4,261	Jedi, Interesting question. I say, "No it isn't right." I believe that our freedom from unwanted intrusion into our bodies supercedes any public benefit (with very few exceptions - perhaps quarantining someone with e bola). If we don't have the freedom to have our bodies be left alone, than we don't have anything! scigirl

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.