just_words Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 People condone one groups / persons action with another groups or persons action! Is this right! I was always taught that "two wrongs don't make a right"! To me, if you say well they did this so it's ok for them to do that is an excuse. I don't believe in torture, so just because some countries use it, I won't say well they use it so why can't we. There is no way i'd ever find an excuse for suicide bombers. Is it possible to debate an issue on it's own without condoning it by other actions! That is like saying it's ok then! P.S. Because a group did X and another group responded by doing Y, is different! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mecky Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 We are British, we won't do anything .... at least not until it's too late. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 "He did it too" is an excuse that most children have picked up by the time they are three; and in many cases they are still using it in retirement. And, of course, it's an utterly feeble excuse; just because other people are doing something wrong doesn't ever exonerate you from doing the same wrong. There is, though, the danger of confusing understanding with excusal. Even where you believe someone is committing a great evil, you can still try to understand what rationale they have for committing it; to do that, does not mean that you are excusing their behaviour. A woman stabs a man to death in cold blood, clearly pre-meditated and planned, with malice aforethought and with great satisfaction. It's a heinous crime, and she should be jailed without question. But if you find that the man she stabbed had repeatedly raped her as a child, it becomes understandable, while still not being excusable. If there is no plausible motive, it never even becomes understandable; you may be forced to conclude that she's just evil by nature, or else that she has serious psychological illness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
just_words Posted February 11, 2011 Author Share Posted February 11, 2011 "He did it too" is an excuse that most children have picked up by the time they are three; and in many cases they are still using it in retirement. And, of course, it's an utterly feeble excuse; just because other people are doing something wrong doesn't ever exonerate you from doing the same wrong. There is, though, the danger of confusing understanding with excusal. Even where you believe someone is committing a great evil, you can still try to understand what rationale they have for committing it; to do that, does not mean that you are excusing their behaviour. A woman stabs a man to death in cold blood, clearly pre-meditated and planned, with malice aforethought and with great satisfaction. It's a heinous crime, and she should be jailed without question. But if you find that the man she stabbed had repeatedly raped her as a child, it becomes understandable, while still not being excusable. If there is no plausible motive, it never even becomes understandable; you may be forced to conclude that she's just evil by nature, or else that she has serious psychological illness. In the eyes of our judicial system it makes a difference if she reacted later or at the time of the incident doesn't it? Also isn't there an equality of action consideration? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.