Description: When a person attempts to justify an activity against an additional perkid because the various other perchild did take or would certainly take the same activity against him or her.

You are watching: What does two wrongs don t make a right mean

Logical Forms:

Human being 1 did X to person 2.

Because of this, perboy 2 is justified to carry out X to perkid 1.

Human being 1 believes that perboy 2 would execute X to person 1.

Thus, person 1 is justified to carry out X to perboy 2.

Example #1:

Jimmy stole Tommy’s lunch in the previous.

Therefore, it is acceptable for Tommy to steal Jimmy’s lunch today.

Explanation: It was wrong for Jimmy to steal Tommy’s lunch, but it is not great reasoning to claim that Tommy stealing Jimmy’s lunch would certainly make the instance best. What we are left via, are two kids who steal, with no better expertise of why they shouldn’t steal.

Example #2:

It looks like the waiter forobtained to charge us for the expensive bottle of champagne. Let’s just leave -- after all, if he overcharged us, I doubt he would certainly chase us dvery own to give us our money back that we overpassist.

Explanation: Here the thinking is a little even more fallacious bereason we are making an assumption of what the waiter might do. Even if that were true, two ripoffs don’t make the instance best.

Exception: Tbelow can be much conflict on what precisely is “justified retribution” or “justified preventative measures”.

Fun Fact: Three lefts make a right.

*


References:
This a logical fallacy frequently supplied on the Internet. No scholastic resources might be found.

See more: Why Do We Build The Wall Lyrics, Patrick Page


Questions around this fallacy? Ask our community!

Master the "Rules of Reason" for Making and Evaluating Claims


*

Claims are constantly being made, many type of of which are confmaking use of, ambiguous, too general to be of value, exaggerated, unfalsifiable, and also indicate a dichotomy once no such dichotomy exists. Good critical reasoning requires a thorough understanding of the case before attempting to identify its veracity. Good interaction needs the ability to make clear, specific, explicit clintends, or “strong” clintends. The rules of factor in this book administer the framework for obtaining this understanding and also capacity.

This book / online course is about the the eleven rules of factor for making and also evaluating clintends. Each spanned in detail in the book.