Two wrongs make a right
|Part of the series on|
Two wrongs make a right is a type of tu quoque logical fallacy based on the idea that wrongs committed by one party can be used to excuse wrongs committed by others. Actions can logically lead to further actions, such as in the case of a man beating another after finding him attempting to steal his car, but this fallacy is employed to justify an action based exclusively on the claim that someone else doing it makes it okay for others to follow their example.
 It's not always a fallacy to draw a comparison with others
A comparison to another person or situation is not necessary a fallacy. Human rights disputes are prone to comparison, since they tend to be based on one group asking for the same rights afforded to another group. The U.S. civil rights movement of the 1960s were able to draw fair comparisons when noting that whites had greater access to government amenities, such as education.
A comparison is valid so long as the request or action can itself be justified without relying exclusively on a comparison. If asking for rights that are afforded to another group, one has to explain why anyone should have those rights in the first place. In the example of civil rights protesters asking for access to education, they would be guilty of a fallacy only if they could offer no good reason why anyone should have similar access.
The fallacy is commonly used to justify actions, perhaps most noticeably in conflicts between countries and ethnic groups. Palestinians and Jews alike can point to perceived injustices committed by the other side, in some cases stretching in to the distant past. This same pattern can be seen in arguments over The Crusades in which Muslims and Christians attempt to attribute blame by citing slights committed by the other side.
 America and China execute people, so why can't we?
In 2010 BBC News published a news story relaying personal experiences with the Sharia police of Aceh, Indonesia. Burhanuddin, one of those responsible for passing the law, offered two arguments to justify the stoning to death of adulterers:
- "Sharia law acts as a deterrent in Aceh. We need it."
- "China has a death penalty, so does America. They even detain people without trial there. Why do people only point the finger at Aceh?"
The first argument may be valid if there is a demonstrable benefit from the institution of the law, but assuming that the death penalty is wrong, the second is an example of the two wrongs make a right fallacy.
 Eddie Murphy finds some white guys to beat up
Eddie Murphy provided an example of this during a comedy stand-up performance when he told a joke about wandering up to a white man and saying "I just lost my job today, to a white man, looks just like you!" He went on to explain that he was going to beat up some white guys to redeem himself. Color may or may not be relevant, but assuming that the loss of his job was wrong, it is certainly the two wrongs make a right fallacy being committed, since there's no other justification provided for the threatened assault.
- ↑ BBC News - On patrol with Aceh's Sharia Police
- ↑ These are quotes and may not accurately reflect the context of the conversation from which they are taken.
- ↑ Eddie Murphy, Raw (1987)
| Articles about logical fallacies|
|Affirming the consequent||Denying the antecedent|
|Fallacious argument styles|