Talk:Two wrongs don't make a right/Archive 1

Old text

Just thought I'd insert one of my favourite tiny jokes here, keeping it out of the article itself, of course:

Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do. :) John Owens 15:27, 1 May 2003

Two wrongs don't make a right, but three do... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.83.183.232 (talk • contribs) 17:16, 12 August 2003

Two wrongs don't make a right, but two Wrights make an airplane -- ShadowDragon 20:57, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Sign outside Chinese restaurant: Two Wongs make it right! — Preceding unsigned comment added by jgm (talk • contribs) 17:07, 12 August 2003

Logical fallacy

This is not a logical fallacy. Actually, no one has ever said that two wrongs make a right. It would be so obviously wrong. As wrong as saying 1 + 1 = 0.

Rather, two wrongs don't make right is a moral principle, or perhaps a slogan expressing a principle. So I moved everything to "slogan:Two wrongs don't make a right". --Uncle Ed 21:37, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

This is a logical fallacy. We very frequently hear arguments going something like:

• Speaker A: George Bush lied in his Congressional testimony.
• Speaker B: But you're ignoring the fact that Bill Clinton lied in his Congressional testimony!

Even if Bill Clinton did lie in his Congressional testimony, that does not make it acceptable for George Bush to do so as well. Speaker B is trying to change the issue to something else. If no one has ever argued directly that "two wrongs make a right", that may be because that would reveal the obviousness of the fallacy invoked; instead "two wrongs make a right" is a necessary and unstated premise of the kind of argument that Speaker B uses.

This may also be a slogan often recited by mothers to their children, but this is a standard logical fallacy. [1] [2] [3] [4]. --Taak 19:56, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Relevance to logic

How is this a logical fallacy??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sopranosso (talk • contribs) 02:45, 21 May 2006

I don't think this is a fallacy either. Logic and morals are two different domains... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.65.33.193 (talk • contribs) 01:47, 30 May 2006

Read the page logical fallacy. This is an example of an "informal fallacy", something that is considered fallacious more because its simply a common error than because of an inherent logical inconsistency. -Silence 11:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I added a sentence to make explicit that this is an informal fallacy. Otherwise, I feel that simply reffering to it as a "logical falacy" implies that it is a formal fallacy. IE, that it is inherently self contradicting. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Northern bear (talk • contribs) 09:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, this clarifies it nicely. Foobaz·o< 05:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

President Johnson

Anybody object if I change the name of "President Johnson". It could imply that LBJ lied to congress; whether he may or may not have done isn't the subject of this page? Grobertson 10:47, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Somebody might want to consider reorganizing this under the entry 'tu quoque,' which is the more-accepted and better-known name for this kind of faulty reasoning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.231.17.226 (talk) 16:53, 11 February 2005 (UTC)

Eye for an eye

Why is it rarely mentioned that "eye for an eye" is an extension of this fallacy? Also, it's objectively true that two wrongs do not make a right. Wronging someone because they wronged you just means that both people are, overall, hurt. There is little or no beneficiary factor here to over-ride this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.124.23.45 (talk • contribs) 21:49, 5 March 2007

An eye for an eye is not a logical fallacy. It is merely a moral, or legal position that one might take.

"John poked out Fred's eye. Therefore, it is just/fair, that Fred should poke out John's eye as retribution/retaliation."

One may argue with the moral validity of this statement. And one may claim that this is not a sound basis for the creation of laws. But the statement is not logically inconsistent.

In fact, many laws are based on the premise that "an eye for an eye" creates an effective deterent, and also preserves a sense of justice that will discourage anarchy and arbitrary retaliation.

If John knows that poking out Fred's eye will result in him having his own eye poked out, then he will be less likely to poke out Fred's eye. And surely that is a good thing. Of course, in order for the threat of "an eye for an eye" to be an effective deterent, it must be carried out. So although the punishment of John, may not produce a social good in and of itself, this act may discourage other crimes, and thus serves the greater good. Neither of the people who have been injured are any better off (arguably), but society as a whole could well be the beneficiary.

In many cases, an eye for an eye is in the greater good. From the narrow perspective of the two people invovled, it is merely two wrongs. But from the wider social perspective, the second wrong contributes to the overal good, so it has helped make things write. Sometimes two wrongs do make right. Northern Bear 15:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

You two are engaging in logical fallacy yourselves. Taking someone's eye out without due process of law may be a wrong, but that does not make all eye-poking-out wrong. We tolerate courts' doing many things we would not permit private citizens to do - confinement, forced transfer of money, and execution. 70.146.15.172 01:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

To say that something is a logical falacy means that it is self contradictory. There is nothing self contradictory about the statement "It is just to poke someone's eye in retaliation for an eye poking." You may not agree with the statement. But there is nothing about the statement itself that is self contradictory. Hence it is not a fallacy. Northern Bear 14:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

No, that's not what a logical fallacy is. A logical fallacy is an apparent argument where the conclusion does not follow from the premises. The fallacy at issue here is assuming that "It is wrong to take someone's eye" is an absolute prohibition, rather than "It is wrong to take someone's eye unless done under the sanction of law." Think about it this way. It is wrong to confine someone against his will, right? But then prison is confinement against one's will. It is wrong to take money under duress. But when a court enters a judgment, it does just that. The fallacy is failing to take account of the implicit assumption of the rules against harming other people - because all punishment and all civil damages are harmful to the one punished or to the one who must satisfy the judgment. You don't know what fallacy is, so you might not want to embarrass yourself any further here. 72.144.68.227 20:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

"An eye for an eye" is not a logical fallacy. It is simply a statement of opinion or belief. When someone says "I believe in an eye for an eye", all they are saying is "I believe that it is fair for criminals to be punished by receiving the same harm that they have inflicted." You may not agree with that belief. But because it is a belief, it can not be a logical fallacy. Opinion are not fallacies. An "eye for an eye", is no more a logical fallacy than is the statement "Star Wars is better than Star Trek." You can disagree with an opinion. But you can not claim somebody's opinion is a logical fallacy, unless the statement is somehow inherently contradictory ("star wars is better than star wars"). An eye for an eye is a matter of personal opinion/belief/outlook, and the statement of that belief is not self contradictory. Therefore, it can not be a logical fallacy. Northern Bear 18:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

If you look at the actions objectively, it is a fallacy. the argument makes a good case for this. It is inherently self-contradictory to say that an action is right, yet wrong. I'm sorry, I'm not thinking as clearly as I wish I was, so I'm not sure how to explain this any better, but at best, it can be a fallacy. While it is admittedly fallacious, as the current article points out, to accuse others of hypocrisy and act as if this somehow invalidates their statements (such things have been done when addressing many notable politicians and other great thinkers). I suppose it depends on objectivity. At face value, it appears to be contradictory, but perhaps it depends on the context of the situation. I'll try not to ramble here, I'm against eye-for-an-eye but I'm trying to be neutral. However, I can say Gandhi had a noteworthy quote regarding this: "An eye for an eye will make the whole world blind." The example regarding President Williams makes a good case for this. It is indeed fallacious--a red herring to be specific, to claim that the fact someone else acted a certain way justifies an identical reaction. Hypothetical: Joe makes Statement X: Let's assume that hitting people is wrong. Joe hits Bill. Bill disregards Statement X, claiming he is now justified to Joe because Joe did not follow his own advice, therefore invalidating his statement. The issue with this logic is as follows: Statement X was an example of moral absolutism, which can be argued as inherently incorrect. It can be argued that certain actions are required depending upon the context of the situation. Objectivity is defined as "not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice." Therefore, morality is parallel to this, or in other words it is subjective. Since the basis of my initial argument depends upon the objectivity of Statement X, the argument is flawed. Anyway, before I lose track of my original point, I believe it should remain an informal fallacy at least for now, because it is a moral argument which depending upon context may or may not be fallacious.67.70.93.45 00:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

When your entire argument rests on a fallacy, then yes, it's invalid. Do you know what a fallacy is? 72.144.68.227 20:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Treating someone as they treat others is not a logical fallacy. That is a logical extention of the Golden Rule. If James blinds John, he obviously does not respect John's sight, so why should John respect his sight? It is only a logical fallacy if you believe violence is fundamentally wrong rather than neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.29.64.37 (talk) 22:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Reference removed ?

Hello,

I wrote the following reference:

• U2 wrote "Angry words won't stop the fight, Two wrongs won't make it right " in "Like A Song" in War album

but it have been removed. why ? What's wrong ? I did made something wrong ? it's just a citation, a reference. (note I'm not native english speaker) 82.228.207.5 12:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if the removal was puzzling. The reason for this is that this article is about logical fallacies. The information about a U2 song lyric fragment does not add any information about logical fallacies. If this new information belongs in an article, then it would probably be in a music article, not this one. I hope that explanation helps, I should have perhaps considered making a comment on the talkpage at the time I removed the material. If this is still unclear, by all means contact this editor, on the Talkpage link shown here, and I will be glad to explain further, and sorry for the misunderstanding. — User:-Newbyguesses - Talk 21:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

no problem, thank for the explanation. it's true it does not add any information. Myself I love interaction between area, it helps to discover things, but that's ok. regards.82.228.207.5 17:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

How do you wrong a wrongdoer?

Treating someone how they treat others. Isn't that just the flip side of the Golden Rule. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.29.64.37 (talk) 22:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

An Exaggeration

The phrase "two wrongs (don't) make a right" is used for even when "speaker 2" obliviously did not imply that the presidents were "right."

What "two wrongs don't make a right" actually means is that it doesn't even matter if someone else did the "wrong" as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.183.79.69 (talk) 08:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Not sure if this is written in the article. Nor sure if there is appropriate references. 77.193.112.189 (talk) 14:03, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Cleanup

This article needs a lot of work. It may more appropriately belong in Wikiquote. There needs to be an etymology or history section. There could be a popular culture section. It needs references. Etc. FatTrebla (talk) 03:32, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree it needs references.

In more that history section, I suggest to add some information to give a chance foreigners to understand those expressions, such as all the meanings which are more or less implied by each assertion, and also each variation on this thematic: right, not right, might be right, can it be right and so on.

I also suggest to add information on geographical area: is this only or mainly used by US-American and English north-American speaker? is it also used in wales, scotland, england and so on? is it also used by non native English speaker? Are their any more or less similar expressions in foreign languages? do they carry all the same not explicitly expressed meanings?

What are the different ways argument/contre-argument can be used?

Is might also be interesting to know how wide this/thoses expression/s is/are used and considered in judicial, political, popular, or educative communities.

Another question I am wondering, and wikipedia might help to solve: If we consider the first one:two wrongs makes a right as a fallacy, isn't a bad/wrong use of the second one: two wrongs does not make a right also a fallacy? If the first one is wrong, why the second wrong should be right? A wrong use of two wrongs does not make a right while everybody says two wrongs does not make a right just does add a wrong to other wrongs, so doing is a common practice! While if wrong, beeing an old adage makes it a traditional wisdom... as if two wrongs did make a right! Really, does it? 77.193.112.189 (talk) 14:50, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Blanking of the Criticism Section

Should blanking be applied to criticism section? If so, why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.76.39.78 (talk • contribs) 12:12, 29 January 2012

Criticism

Common use of the term, in the realm of business ethics, has been criticized by scholar Gregory S. Kavka writing in the Journal of Business Ethics. Kavka refers back 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, then an individual or group within society can break that standard or rule as well since this keeps them from 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 takes other's property in the first place. He also states that one should be careful not to use this ambiguity as an excuse to recklessly violate ethical rules.

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 left un-prosecuted, this creates a legal precedent. Thus, people who do the same wrongs in the future should rationally expect to get away as well. Lasky analogizes the situation between John F. Kennedy's wiretapping of Martin Luther King, Jr. (which lead to nothing) and Richard Nixon's actions in Watergate (which Nixon thought would also lead to nothing).

References

Add suggestion

I suggest to add in introduction:

This English phrase is used to answer and accuse somebody's position to not be good (right), when he/she justify its position by an anterior element. From the point of view of the one who use this expression, normality should not been appreciated in regard of anterior elements, but in regard of an established norm. Additionally, the user of this expression considers badly both the position of its opponent, and other element.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.75.236.140 (talk • contribs) 09:24, 30 June 2012