"I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong."
Agree or disagree? 100% agree? 100% disagree? Some where in between?
No right or wrong answers, just curious about the discussion.
Quote is from Frederick Douglass by the way.
"I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong."
Agree or disagree? 100% agree? 100% disagree? Some where in between?
No right or wrong answers, just curious about the discussion.
Quote is from Frederick Douglass by the way.
Just depends on your perspective.
Sometimes bad things need to be done for good reasons, and sometimes good things are done for bad reasons. The question is, are you more interested in the ends or the means?
I'm not sure if that really fits the scope of the quote mcantar.
I was asking more along the lines of the big picture.
If an illegal alien approached you and asked for your help to stop three guys raping his illegal wife in an alley; would you or wouldn't you?
**I only used an illegal because I don't know enough about you to know who you would not normally team up with. I didn't want this to necessarily be political or otherwise like the rest of the topics that the board seems to constantly rehash over and over. I couldn't really come up with a better example to explain how I interpreted the quote at this time.**
I would say I agree. I see the argument about perspective - but in my eyes, if I was attempting to do something good and just then I would work with my sworn enemy to accomplish it. By the same token, if I thought it was towards an evil end I think I would walk away from my own blood if they refused to listen to reason. This is all theoretically, of course.
I think you're right about this being about perspective, but the perspective of something good and something evil is where the quote becomes flawed. The perspective of rightousness and evil is based on the individual. It's entirely possible for two sides to both see their cause as the righteous cause and yet terminally conflict with each other. As a third party at that point, the third individuals judgement based on their background, can only be weight as the individuals and not a universal truth.Quote:
Originally Posted by GunsRBadMMMMKay
Rarely does history show clear black and white decisions. When you chose a side, you make your bed. Only the closed minded cannot see their opposition's perspective.
I originally thought what Mcantar thought. Do the ends justify the means?
"I would unite with anybody to do right..."
Would you stand shoulder to shoulder with somebody just because at that moment they were doing the right thing, regardless of past offenses or future intentions? To use a very simple example, would you pose for a photo op with Mao at a fundraiser to raise money to find loving homes for cute little puppies? No matter how legit that specific fundraiser might be, I couldn't do it.
On the other hand, as in your example Irving, how could you not help a woman who was being raped, regardless of legal status? I couldn't live with myself if I was in a position to possibly stop a horrible crime like this and did nothing.
I guess in the end i would have to say "It depends". But generally, yes, I agree with this statement.
Or,
If I was a New Orleans police officer during Katrina ordered to confiscate personal firearms from citizens I would be forced to decide between keeping my job and upholding the US Constitution.
Its why I've never seriously thought about being a peace officer even though I have contacts in local departments.
That reminded me of something Winston Churchill once said, "If Hitler were to invade Hell I would find something good to say about the Devil." During World War II the US and Great Britain allied with Stalin.Quote:
Originally Posted by Irving
The trouble with hypothetical situations is that there are an almost infinite amount of them. Like others have said it depends. In normal circumstances I would not unite with some people but other times I might. What I would consider wrong most of the time may be acceptable in other situations.
So the answer is a definite maybe.
What does illegal have to do with stopping a woman from being raped? I hear a woman screaming for help, the last thing on my agenda at that time is, are they a citizen of the US.Quote:
Originally Posted by Irving
As a human being i could not live with myself knowing i ignored a cry for help, could you?
So really the issue is how any one of us would define "right" and "wrong."
Isn't that a question of morality?
Regardless of what the thing is, if you or I personally believe that something is "right" then we would do it regardless of how we felt about the people who were helping us and vice versa. I can normally justify working to do good with people I don't like or disagree with using a quote from Lincoln: "A house divided against itself cannot stand." Lincoln derived this concept and the quote from the Bible.
Who defines "right" and "wrong" and is there an ultimate authority for truth? We each have to struggle with that one and probably more often each day than we realize.
If Hitler, Satan, and Mao were feeding homeless, starving, kittens, I would help them. If for no other reason, I would want to find out what they were planning to do with the kittens knowing that it probably wasn't going to be good. [Flower]
Yeah, that's the problem.
The right for one is the wrong for another.
Isaiah 5:20
2 Timothy 3:1-7
Forgive the religiousness but it really fits.
That question was directed a mcantar, because I've asked him a similar question before about defending the life of an illegal, and he said that if he knew for sure that the person was illegal, he wouldn't do anything to assist them.Quote:
Originally Posted by jim
I'm not sure why people insist on breaking this down to the perception of good or evil. In my opinion, that doesn't have anything to do with the quote. It is easiest for me to decide, when taken at face value. "I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong."
Would you help your brother rob a bank?
No.Quote:
Originally Posted by Irving
I would beat the shit out of the rapists and then have the illegals deported.Quote:
Originally Posted by Irving
Great answer.
Of course you would have to stop the rape, she might get pregnant and drop an anchor baby that let's her stay.Quote:
Originally Posted by Irving
Sorry, I forgot about this thread. The following quotes pretty much sum up my thoughts on this, with the exception of "beat the shit out of the rapist" (I'd be a little more aggressive in my response).Quote:
Originally Posted by Irving
Quote:
Originally Posted by spyder
Quote:
Originally Posted by rockhound
If someone was in danger and I was absolutely 100% positive that they were illegal, I'd be pretty slow to react to the situation. Like if Paco Taco was yelling for help, drowning in the Rio Grande while trying to swim across... "Sure, you stay right there, I'll find a life vest to throw you as soon as I go get some lunch."Quote:
Originally Posted by Irving
If we're talking strictly face value, then no, I have to disagree with that quote.
I would say that at face value I agree with the quote, but it is not all encompassing. Just because I agree with the quote, doesn't mean that I'd have to ALWAYS unite with anyone to do good. Would I help my enemy open a fire hydrant to save a burning orphanage? Sure.
Would I tutor my enemy's kid so he could pass his English test next week? Nope, screw 'em. Thanks for coming back here.
I agree with your first sentence there... which is why I disagree with the quote. The way I read it, its all-encompasing, and while there are situations where I probably would there are also situations where I definitely wouldn't.