By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Tagged games:

 

Which person is the best?

Person A 3 30.00%
 
Person C 1 10.00%
 
Person D 1 10.00%
 
Neither 5 50.00%
 
Total:10

Let's say person A inflicts harm on person B.

Person C inflicts harm on person A and says he did so because A inflicted harm on B.

Can person D inflict harm on person C with the same reasoning? If he can, is it wrong to inflict harm on anyone?

If it's not wrong, then is C justifiable in his approach in harming A? If it's wrong, are C and D both wrong?

Added parts :

Person B had done no harm to person A.

All of this events happen with only two of these people together at a given time. That is, person A and B are together, or person A and C are together, or person C and D are together. Not more than 2.



Around the Network

Inflicting harm is always wrong in my book, except in defense. It all boils down to person A's motivation.



I added in the OP, person B had done no harm to person A.



Person B would be the best in the situation. But, if Person A had a great reason to inflict harm (which I doubt) then I would choose him.



NintendoPie said:
Person B would be the best in the situation. But, if Person A had a great reason to inflict harm (which I doubt) then I would choose him.

You can't choose person B. It's between A, C, and D; and A had no reason to harm B.



Around the Network
mantlepiecek said:
NintendoPie said:
Person B would be the best in the situation. But, if Person A had a great reason to inflict harm (which I doubt) then I would choose him.

You can't choose person B. It's between A, C, and D; and A had no reason to harm B.

@ your edit.

OT: Then I would choose D as he hasn't caused harm.



Well, in that case it seems like person B was harmed for no reason while person C wanted to defend him. Person C didn't harm A without reason, while person D's only reasoning should be to defend A's actions, unless D wasn't aware of C's motivation (defending).

Assuming that B wasn't able to defend himself, C did the right thing while A and D had no reason to hit anyone.



IIIIITHE1IIIII said:
Well, in that case it seems like person B was harmed for no reason while person C wanted to defend him. Person C didn't harm A without reason, while person D's only reasoning should be to defend A's actions, unless D wasn't aware of C's motivation (defending).

Assuming that B wasn't able to defend himself, C did the right thing while A and D had no reason to hit anyone.

I thought D didn't hit anyone? It was just questioned at if it would be OK.



NintendoPie said:
IIIIITHE1IIIII said:
Well, in that case it seems like person B was harmed for no reason while person C wanted to defend him. Person C didn't harm A without reason, while person D's only reasoning should be to defend A's actions, unless D wasn't aware of C's motivation (defending).

Assuming that B wasn't able to defend himself, C did the right thing while A and D had no reason to hit anyone.

I thought D didn't hit anyone? It was just questioned at if it would be OK.



And I clearly said that there is no reason for him to do so. Where's the confusion?

IIIIITHE1IIIII said:



And I clearly said that there is no reason for him to do so. Where's the confusion?

It looked like you were defending D against hitting someone when he didn't.

If he didn't hit anyone in this case wouldn't he be the "best"?