Two wrongs make a right logical fallacy: definition, examples, and how to spot it

Home/All Fallacies/Two wrongs make a right

Fallacy profile

Two wrongs make a right

Occurs when someone treats one wrong act as justified because it responds to, retaliates against, or balances out another wrong.

TacticalEvidential

Definition

Occurs when someone treats one wrong act as justified because it responds to, retaliates against, or balances out another wrong.

Illustrative example

Their side spread fake clips about us, so we are justified in spreading a few about them.

Teaching gauges

These 0-100 gauges are teaching aids for comparing fallacies. They are editorial classroom estimates, not measured statistics. View these on the Map.

Very common

Common in today's rhetoric

Appears regularly in everyday public rhetoric.

Moderate

Easy to spot

Recognizable, but easy to miss in a fast or heated exchange.

Common slip

Easy to innocently commit

Sometimes accidental and sometimes more strategic.

Intermediate

Difficulty

Usually accessible fairly early once students have a few clear examples in view.

High schoolScientific reasoning

Reference

Family

Relevance/Distraction Fallacy

The move shifts attention away from the real issue and substitutes something rhetorically nearby but logically irrelevant.

View all members of this family

Quick check

Is the argument still addressing the original issue, or has the conversation been steered away?

Why it misleads

A fuller explanation of how the fallacy works and why it can look persuasive.

Exposing hypocrisy can matter, but retaliation does not erase the original wrong or magically sanitize a copy of it.

That's like saying...

Instead of leading with the label, this analogy answers the shape of the reasoning move directly so the mistake is easier to see in plain language.

Fallacious claim

Their side spread fake clips about us, so we are justified in spreading a few about them.

That's like saying...

That's like keying your neighbor's car because he scratched yours. One wrong is being treated as if it could justify another.

Caveat

This label is easy to overuse. The point here is not to call every weak argument by this name, but to reserve it for the exact misstep it describes.

Common misapplication

Do not use this label every time an argument feels unfair, heated, or evasive. It applies when the move really does distract from, pressure, or replace the reasoning at issue. Exposing hypocrisy can matter, but retaliation does not erase the original wrong or magically sanitize a copy of it.

Use the label only when...

Use this label only when someone treats one wrong act as justified because it responds to, retaliates against, or balances out another wrong. If the real problem is that a claim is accepted or dismissed because of some irrelevant association rather than because of the merits of the claim itself, the better label is Association fallacy.

Often confused with

These near neighbors are easy to mix up, so use the comparison to see the exact difference.

Comparison

Association fallacy

Why people mix them up: Both often look like tactical and evidential mistakes at first glance.

Exact difference: Two wrongs make a right happens when someone treats one wrong act as justified because it responds to, retaliates against, or balances out another wrong. Association fallacy happens when a claim is accepted or dismissed because of some irrelevant association rather than because of the merits of the claim itself.

Quick split: Is the argument still addressing the original issue, or has the conversation been steered away? Then compare it with Is the argument still addressing the original issue, or has the conversation been steered away?

Comparison

Tu quoque

Why people mix them up: Both often look like tactical and evidential mistakes at first glance.

Exact difference: Two wrongs make a right happens when someone treats one wrong act as justified because it responds to, retaliates against, or balances out another wrong. Tu quoque happens when criticism is answered not by engaging the issue, but by pointing to similar hypocrisy or wrongdoing elsewhere.

Practice And Repair

Extra teaching tools that show why the fallacy is persuasive, what to look for, and how to correct it.

Why it matters

Why this mistake matters

Two wrongs make a right threatens rationality because someone treats one wrong act as justified because it responds to, retaliates against, or balances out another wrong.

Main reasoning problem

Someone treats one wrong act as justified because it responds to, retaliates against, or balances out another wrong.

Why this kind of mistake matters

It moves attention away from the claim's evidential status and toward a pressure tactic, distraction, or rhetorical maneuver.

Try it

What this walkthrough follows

Follow the example to see how attention gets redirected away from the real issue and toward pressure, distraction, or emotional force. It moves through Surface, Pressure, Displaced issue, and Reset so the reader can follow the example from setup to diagnosis to repair.

Where the slip happens

The maneuver enters when someone treats one wrong act as justified because it responds to, retaliates against, or balances out another wrong.

How to use the stages

Move through Surface -> Pressure -> Displaced issue -> Reset in order, compare each stage to the current example, and stop as soon as the later step adds more than the earlier one has earned.

What the repair step asks

Is the argument still addressing the original issue, or has the conversation been steered away?

Debate-move walkthrough

Follow the example to see how attention gets redirected away from the real issue and toward pressure, distraction, or emotional force.

What the exchange looks like on the surface

At first glance, the move sounds like this: Their side spread fake clips about us, so we are justified in spreading a few about them.

What this walkthrough highlights: The app marks the point where the discussion stopped tracking the truth of the original claim.

Current example: Their side spread fake clips about us, so we are justified in spreading a few about them.

Check yourself

The assessment area now uses mixed 10-question sets, so the fallacy is not announced in the title before the quiz begins.

What the assessment does

You will work through a mixed set of fallacy-identification questions. Focused links from a fallacy page will quietly include this fallacy among nearby look-alikes without announcing the answer in the page title.

Open the check

Open a mixed Check Yourself set that includes this fallacy.

Questions to ask

Use these category-based prompts to audit similar arguments.

Prompt 1

Is the argument still addressing the original issue, or has the conversation been steered away?

Prompt 2

What evidence is missing, selected, or overstretched here?

Case studies

Each case study explains why the example fits the fallacy and links back to its source whenever source information is available.

In 2024 election discourse, misinformation was often excused with the claim that the other side lies too, as if symmetry or revenge transformed falsehood into fairness. The fallacy here is Two wrongs make a right: someone treats one wrong act as justified because it responds to, retaliates against, or balances out another wrong.
That matters here because exposing hypocrisy can matter, but retaliation does not erase the original wrong or magically sanitize a copy of it. The better question is whether the original claim has been answered rather than sidestepped or reframed.

Debates about censorship, doxxing, and dirty campaign tactics often slide from condemnation into imitation, with each side treating the other's bad behavior as a license to do the same. The fallacy here is Two wrongs make a right: someone treats one wrong act as justified because it responds to, retaliates against, or balances out another wrong.
That matters here because exposing hypocrisy can matter, but retaliation does not erase the original wrong or magically sanitize a copy of it. The better question is whether the original claim has been answered rather than sidestepped or reframed.

Related fallacies

Nearby entries chosen by shared categories and family resemblance.

LogFall