Two wrongs make a right — proverb, fallacy and moral debate

Logical and rhetorical classification

In informal logic the idea that a wrongful act is excused because someone else committed a similar act is treated as an informal fallacy. Writers and teachers of critical thinking often label it the "two wrongs" fallacy or place it with related tactics such as informal fallacy and the appeal-to-hypocrisy. It is typically a fallacy of relevance: the fact that another party behaved badly does not establish the moral or legal rightness of a retaliatory act. For more on the family of errors it is often grouped with, see discussions of fallacies of relevance.

Common contexts and examples

• Interpersonal disputes: responding to an insult by insulting back and claiming parity as justification.
• Workplace events: defending an unethical shortcut by pointing out that colleagues did the same.
• Politics and international affairs: citing other states' violations to excuse one’s own breaches of norms or treaties.

Each example shows why mutual misconduct does not automatically transform a wrongful act into a right one: it shifts the issue from whether an act was justifiable to whether two wrongs somehow cancel each other out — a move that fails to address the underlying moral standard.

Legally, retaliation is often restricted; many systems distinguish between permitted self-defence and prohibited revenge. Ethically, different frameworks respond differently: some consequentialist views might weigh outcomes and allow tit-for-tat when it produces better long‑term results, while deontological positions reject reciprocal wrongs regardless of consequences.

Alternatives to adopting a "two wrongs" rationale include proportional response within legal bounds, restorative practices that repair harms, and refusing to mirror misconduct. Recognizing when an argument appeals to reciprocal wrongdoing helps keep debates focused on principles and evidence rather than on deflection or justification by comparison.