Two wrongs make a right

"Two wrongs make a right" and "two wrongs don't make a right" are English phrases that denote philosophical norms.

The key idea is based on "two wrongs", a phrase that consider two things as wrong.

“Two wrongs don't make a right”, is a proverb used to rebuke or renounce wrongful conduct as a response to another's assumed transgression.

“Two wrongs make a right” has an allegation of wrongdoing is countered with a similar allegation. In English, that might be considered as a fallacy of relevance.

“Two wrongs make a right” might be considered as a fallacy of relevance since it assumes that if one wrong is committed, another wrong cancels it out.

This phrase considers the two actions are wrong. For that reason, it is not used by a wrongdoer who does not consider its action as wrong.

This phrase considers breaking the law (or the wrong) is justified as long as the other party also does so.

Two wrongs don't make a right is a proverb and means that a wrongful action is not an appropriate way to correct or cancel a previous wrongful action regarding to a norm.

Additionally, it alleges the first action is also wrong.

When both actions are considered wrong, the two phrases might be opposed to each other.

Common use of the term is criticized by scholar Gregory S. Kavka in Journal of Business Ethics. Kavka refers to philosophical concepts of retribution by Thomas Hobbes. He states that if something supposedly held up as a moral standard or common social rule is violated enough in society, an individual or group within society can break that standard or rule as well by being being unfairly disadvantaged. As well, in specific circumstances violations of social rules can be defensible if done as direct responses to other violations.

For example, Kavka states that it is wrong to deprive someone of their property but it is right to take property back from a criminal who took another's property in the first place. He also states that one should be careful not to use this ambiguity as an excuse to violate ethical rules recklessly.^[1]

Conservative journalist Victor Lasky wrote in his book It Didn't Start With Watergate that while "two wrongs don't make a right." if a set of immoral things are done and not prosecuted, that creates a legal precedent. People who do the same wrongs in the future should thus rationally expect to get away as well. Lasky analogizes the situation between John F. Kennedy's wiretapping of Martin Luther King, Jr., which led to nothing, and Richard Nixon's actions in Watergate, which Nixon thought would also lead to nothing.^[2]

The phrase "two wrongs infer one right" appears in a poem dated to 1734 that was published in The London Magazine.^[3]

• Norm (philosophy)
• An eye for an eye
• Tit for tat
• Punishment
• Retributive justice

• The Fallacy Files: Two Wrongs Make a Right
• Nizkor: two wrongs make a right Archived 2017-05-12 at the Wayback Machine