From: leducblanc@aol.com (LeDucBlanc)
Date: 18 Oct 1998 12:21:34 EDT
To those it may concern,
I have pretty much decided, now, to avoid the evergrowing argument now spiraling out of control regarding Dal and Huma's nonchallenge. I am going to stop worrying about it. I have said my piece and that is that. I will now move on. The topic is getting more degenerate each day, and there is nothing new to add.
That being said, I will offer to change the subject. Won't this be fun? Percy is going to give the whole DoS another chance to flame him, just to make them feel better about the whoe Dal/Huma mess.
This is in the nature of philosophical questiion. Please answer it as carefully as you can. Here we go: If a man commits a dishonourable act int he cause of what he, himself, believes to be right, are we to forgive him or censure him? If his dishonourable act does deserve punishment, is an action that is of itself dishonourable and appropriate punishment for the one who has broken his own honour? Simply out, in the plainest terms, this is the
question I want answered: Do two wrongs ever make a right and, if they do, under what conditions?
Please refrain from naming names, citing specific examples from life, or comparing this question to the current argument going on. This is philosophical question that really does trouble me, and sincere answers will be appreciated.
Duc Percival Marchand de Clermont
Warlord of Duel of Swords
Member of House Dragoon-Talanador
A Friendly Change of Subject
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: quickvarmg@aol.com (QuickVarMG)
Date: 18 Oct 1998 14:21:56 EDT
As I wrote to the council:
"Justice is when you grit your teeth, whether you recieve it, or give it."
If nobody understands what that means, let me explain. If someone commits a dishonorable act, then justice will reach them. It is that time when one will grit their teeth on the recieving end.
If you grit your teeth when giving one justice, you examine yourself, and what you feel is right. Would you be giving justice to a bread stealer by running your sword through him? As that man giving justice raises his blade, he too, will grit his teeth.
A few simple words to think about.
Simply,
Var Medici-Giovanni
±
|¯Proud father, proud husband¯|
|¯Holder of the Tenth Ring¯|
|¯Soul dedicated to Noelle¯|
|¯Devoted to his children¯|
Date: 18 Oct 1998 14:21:56 EDT
As I wrote to the council:
"Justice is when you grit your teeth, whether you recieve it, or give it."
If nobody understands what that means, let me explain. If someone commits a dishonorable act, then justice will reach them. It is that time when one will grit their teeth on the recieving end.
If you grit your teeth when giving one justice, you examine yourself, and what you feel is right. Would you be giving justice to a bread stealer by running your sword through him? As that man giving justice raises his blade, he too, will grit his teeth.
A few simple words to think about.
Simply,
Var Medici-Giovanni
±
|¯Proud father, proud husband¯|
|¯Holder of the Tenth Ring¯|
|¯Soul dedicated to Noelle¯|
|¯Devoted to his children¯|
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: ytmeis@aol.com (YTMEIS)
Date: 18 Oct 1998 16:05:09 EDT
Duc Marchand de Clermont:
You used the word "dishonorable" many times in your question. Honor and dishonor are hard to clearly define. It is hard to explain them without using examples.
One act which would be dishonorable according to everyone, I believe, would be cold-blooded murder, without any reason or rationale. What should be the punishment for a murderer? In my opinion, which is likely shared with a good percentage of my fellow duelers, the punishment should be death. Is the killing of a murderer dishonorable? It varies. If administered as another murder, by a second killer, it is dishonorable. If administered by a
court, it would be the right thing to do.
This can be an example of your question, I believe. If one feels that he has been slighted by another, he may delude himself into feeling that the only way to redeem himself is by murder. Another person might view the murder, and decide on his own that the killer deserves death. This can be an elaboration on the aforementioned case.
The crux of the matter: Do two wrongs make a right? No. Bear in mind, though, that it is not up to an individual to decide whether another's act is right or wrong.
Interestingly, even a wrong plus a right do not make two rights; the wrong is still wrong, the right is still right.
These opinions are my own; feel free to object or agree.
- Jaem Triver, M@M@A
Capt., The Disengaged
Master-at-Master-at-Armship
Date: 18 Oct 1998 16:05:09 EDT
Duc Marchand de Clermont:
You used the word "dishonorable" many times in your question. Honor and dishonor are hard to clearly define. It is hard to explain them without using examples.
One act which would be dishonorable according to everyone, I believe, would be cold-blooded murder, without any reason or rationale. What should be the punishment for a murderer? In my opinion, which is likely shared with a good percentage of my fellow duelers, the punishment should be death. Is the killing of a murderer dishonorable? It varies. If administered as another murder, by a second killer, it is dishonorable. If administered by a
court, it would be the right thing to do.
This can be an example of your question, I believe. If one feels that he has been slighted by another, he may delude himself into feeling that the only way to redeem himself is by murder. Another person might view the murder, and decide on his own that the killer deserves death. This can be an elaboration on the aforementioned case.
The crux of the matter: Do two wrongs make a right? No. Bear in mind, though, that it is not up to an individual to decide whether another's act is right or wrong.
Interestingly, even a wrong plus a right do not make two rights; the wrong is still wrong, the right is still right.
These opinions are my own; feel free to object or agree.
- Jaem Triver, M@M@A
Capt., The Disengaged
Master-at-Master-at-Armship
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: xxlucianxx@aol.com (XxLucianxX)
Date: 18 Oct 1998 17:08:45 EDT
White Duke,
Let me briefly give an answer, and then perhaps upon seeing more responses I shall elaborate. When a man commits an act that violates his code of honor in the persuit of what is "right" he has opened himself to whatever retribution both society and his own conscience will unleash upon him. That is the cost of following one's convictions. However, it is not to say the punishment would actually come to fruition. As we know, it is the victor who
writes the histories. The man assassinating an unjust ruler and taking over the throne will be praised as a hero, but he is still an assassin. An evil, manical, and heartless man killing off that formentioned hero will be regarded as a villian and a traitor for doing exactly the same thing, killing a leader he thought should not be in power. Therein lies the weakness of philosophy, without the concrete backing it, it is merely words.
In summation :
Two wrongs never make a right, unless they do, in which case two wrongs do make a right. I believe that to be approximately the only exactly correct answer to this very real hypothetical situation.
-- Lucian
Date: 18 Oct 1998 17:08:45 EDT
White Duke,
Let me briefly give an answer, and then perhaps upon seeing more responses I shall elaborate. When a man commits an act that violates his code of honor in the persuit of what is "right" he has opened himself to whatever retribution both society and his own conscience will unleash upon him. That is the cost of following one's convictions. However, it is not to say the punishment would actually come to fruition. As we know, it is the victor who
writes the histories. The man assassinating an unjust ruler and taking over the throne will be praised as a hero, but he is still an assassin. An evil, manical, and heartless man killing off that formentioned hero will be regarded as a villian and a traitor for doing exactly the same thing, killing a leader he thought should not be in power. Therein lies the weakness of philosophy, without the concrete backing it, it is merely words.
In summation :
Two wrongs never make a right, unless they do, in which case two wrongs do make a right. I believe that to be approximately the only exactly correct answer to this very real hypothetical situation.
-- Lucian
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: drakewyni@aol.com (Drakewyn I)
Date: 18 Oct 1998 17:18:36 EDT
Percival.
As I have said before, Honor is something that comes from within, not from outside... This being said, the -only- person who can judge whether what they have done is honorable is that person alone.
While surely many may say that so-and-so has no honor, or that such-and-such has done a dishonorable thing... these are only opinions. Only when a person breaks the laws of the community does a thing become "wrong" in fact.
Now, having said this... I will, at this time, avoid the subject of morality and continue with the letter of the law... also avoiding the subject of the "spirit" of the law.
When an individual circumvents the laws of the land, even if for the betterment of the community, they have -still- broken the law and must be made to face the consequences of their actions. The middle ground here only comes in the application of Justice, which is done in the aformentioned "spirit" of the law.
For example... If someone were to kill another person, they should be tried for the crime. Period. If the person killed were about to commit murder, or some equally heinous crime, then that would be something considered in the trial, and not when deciding if there should be a trial.
Two wrongs -can- make a right... but only when the law and justice have been respected and served.
Thank you for your time.
Lady Drake, aka the Gryphon
Date: 18 Oct 1998 17:18:36 EDT
Percival.
As I have said before, Honor is something that comes from within, not from outside... This being said, the -only- person who can judge whether what they have done is honorable is that person alone.
While surely many may say that so-and-so has no honor, or that such-and-such has done a dishonorable thing... these are only opinions. Only when a person breaks the laws of the community does a thing become "wrong" in fact.
Now, having said this... I will, at this time, avoid the subject of morality and continue with the letter of the law... also avoiding the subject of the "spirit" of the law.
When an individual circumvents the laws of the land, even if for the betterment of the community, they have -still- broken the law and must be made to face the consequences of their actions. The middle ground here only comes in the application of Justice, which is done in the aformentioned "spirit" of the law.
For example... If someone were to kill another person, they should be tried for the crime. Period. If the person killed were about to commit murder, or some equally heinous crime, then that would be something considered in the trial, and not when deciding if there should be a trial.
Two wrongs -can- make a right... but only when the law and justice have been respected and served.
Thank you for your time.
Lady Drake, aka the Gryphon
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: girvin@aol.com (GIRVIN)
Date: 19 Oct 1998 07:50:47 EDT
The high road is hard.
Two wrongs will never make a right, they only make more wrongs. AS I have told my son many times, one never needs apologize for doing the right thing.
The point I believe, although not mentioned in the original question, is where is the high ground lays. If one must make a hard decision, it is always better to choose that which is fair and just not just to the self, but also goes to the greater good. For by helping just one person around you to achieve noble and decent things, you add a light to the world entire. There is never a time that one should not examine and weigh the motivations behind
one's actions, for they can often be the difference between wrong and right.
At least that is my thinking.
Constant,
~Brian Girvin
Date: 19 Oct 1998 07:50:47 EDT
The high road is hard.
Two wrongs will never make a right, they only make more wrongs. AS I have told my son many times, one never needs apologize for doing the right thing.
The point I believe, although not mentioned in the original question, is where is the high ground lays. If one must make a hard decision, it is always better to choose that which is fair and just not just to the self, but also goes to the greater good. For by helping just one person around you to achieve noble and decent things, you add a light to the world entire. There is never a time that one should not examine and weigh the motivations behind
one's actions, for they can often be the difference between wrong and right.
At least that is my thinking.
Constant,
~Brian Girvin