Who is more wrong: the person who starts the problem or the person who responds agressively?

Question

Who would you say more so, and why?

For example, say a news reported displays false information about a person that ruins this person's carreer. This person then responds agressively and perhaps maybe even murders the news reporter or the company. In this situation, who is more wrong: the news reporter or the individual who responded agressively?

Answer 1

There is a phrase in law: "Mitigating damage." I think it may apply, in a way, to your question. In your example, the negative reaction compounds the damage when perceived as a "whole." I think it's more a matter of choosing a more wise reaction than it is a "wrong." As for "...either wrong or right & nothing in between.." I disagree. There are many shades of gray between black & white. Some of the answers seemed to assume that you had taken a position, however, I don't see that at all. There were a couple of "analogies" that for me, suggest rather different circumstances than yours, but I would have to say in my humble opinion that an action is an action--if the ball falls in someone's court, they have equal responsibility of choice. Regardless of the various scenarios we could all present, & debate, (to various degrees of initial "injury" & "response"), there must be a basic concept by which to judge "retaliation." Arthur N's last lline, "...tempered by wisdom & intelligence" is a concept I can accept.

Answer 2

The person who responds aggressively is always and will always be the one doing the greater wrong.

Lets take an example of a father with a daughter (who lets assume is 15 to make this illegal in many countries) who has been made pregnant by a guy who now refuses to take responsibility for the child.

Now lets assume that the father takes a gun and goes to see the guy who made his daughter pregnant, and through heated argument and scuffle shoots the guy dead.

Who in this situation who has done the greater wrong? Well the jaded and incompetent of our society will say that the guy who made the daughter pregnant will be the greater wrong. However people learn and change, and although he may not take responsibility for the child now may in the future. The father however has through an accident taken the life of the guy.

So in such a situation the father will always have committed the greater wrong because he has not only taken a life but also prevented any possibility of the child knowing its father latter in life.

While there are situation where an aggressive approach to a problem is the only one that will solve the problem they are few and far between and normally require the aggressive action to be tempered by wisdom and intelligence.

Hope this helps.

Answer 3

Okay, I know I am in the minority here, but in my humble opinion, the person MORE wrong is the instigator of the problem. Having said that, don't misinterpret and think I am taking fault away from the aggressor, but had the instigator never instigated, the aggressor would never have reacted.
Note, the instigator may not have predicted the outrageous nature of the reaction, but that still doesn't take away his or her status as a troublemaker.
Take the case of battered woman syndrome. A woman will stay with a man knowing FULL WELL he beats her up and endangers her life on occasion. If she stays, then isn't it kindof her fault, too?
The man may be the aggressor, but she is kindof being a troublemaker by staying with someone SHE KNOWS acts that way whenever he gets angry.

Answer 4

Sorry to disappoint you but... "more wrong"? NO WAY! Listen, it's either wrong or right, nothing in between and nothing else. If someone response to a wrong, they are ALSO wrong unless they are the ones correcting the wrong...!

It's like this: if you fight evil with evil, only EVIL wins.

Let me address this differently, if you argue with an idiot, someone passing by cannot tell the difference. OK?

Someone starts a fight... if the other person doesn't respond, no one loses and no one wins. IF there's a fight, both lose because they've proven that common sense and intelligence did not enter into the equation! PERIOD.

By responding to an idiot, you lower yourself to that person's level and someone who comes by cannot tell who started or what happend to cause the fight... just that two idiots are fighting and making a great show for those around them being entertained by the two fools!

When someone does something wrong and you respond with something wrong... wrong is wrong, period! Sooner or later you'll have to start to mature and become an adult. Start now by leaving behind those childish notions that something "is more wrong." Pay attention to this and try to understand what it means: "Learn to lose so that you can win." OR, "Lose a minor battle but win the war."

Get it? Understand? IF you don't, wait a few years and it may dawn on you when you see two kids fighting and you realize how ridiculous they are for fighting over such childish, stupid nonsense!

Answer 5

Ultimately- I think they share the responsibility for whatever happens. In Shakespeare's Julius Caesar, Cassius (the guy with the "lean & hungry look..."), goads Brutus into joining his asassination party- because it would give the act political credibility, and reduce his OWN culpablility. Both men came to the same end- even though it was Cassius' idea. Whether you're too smart, or too stupid, for your own good- the wrong yields the same result. Hail Caesar! :)

Answer 6

How about the "wrong" is a criminal and society responds by imposing justice? Do some of these answers mean that we are wrong as a society to put this person in jail?

Answer 7

a million) in all risk Sydney 2) This freshman Austin. He replaced into large large. i'm a jr and hes purely so candy. i'm taking him decrease than my wing. 3) Jacob. I hate him. i'm hoping he gets hit by potential of a bus. That entire ingredient replaced into so ******* stupid. Now you get a narrative. i've got enjoyed him by using fact that 8th grade and he knew it. yet he had a woman chum so i did no longer bypass after him by using fact i in my opinion understand peoples relationships. and then approximately six months in the past he stored complaining to me approximately his relationship issues and he ended up breaking up along with her. and then he made it look like he enjoyed me. And he kissed me. And we've been "relationship" yet we weren't. and then whilst he had to have intercourse and that i pronounced I wasn't waiting he left. 4) Sydney, shes a stable chum. 5) Kylie. we've commonplace one yet another by using fact that we've been youngsters.

Answer 8

Modern day society has shown that it is more treacherous to kill another individual than to de-fame them. The reasoning behind this is because by killing an individual... you end thier life for good. De-faming an individual can be remedied by time whereas death cannot.

Answer 9

the person who started the problem could have started a problem for more than one reason! BUT the person ending it has only one agenda .

Answer 10

What a question. Was you in this situation? Which side were you on? Just curious.