In rhetoric and ethics, " two mistakes make rights " and " two errors make no rights " are phrases that indicate philosophical norms. "Two mistakes make a right" has been regarded as a fault of relevance, in which allegations of error are countered with similar allegations. Conversely, "two mistakes do not make a right", is a saying used to rebuke or abandon wrong behavior in response to another's offense.
Video Two wrongs make a right
History
The phrase "two errors summed up the right one" appears in a poem dated 1734, published in The London Magazine .
Maps Two wrongs make a right
Example
This is an informal fallacy that occurs when it assumes that, if one is done, then another error will cancel it.
- Speaker A: You should not darken from your boss. It's against the law.
- Speaker B: My company is cheating their taxes. It's also illegal!
If Speaker B believes in the saying "the law must be followed," then the unwritten premise is that violating the law (or wrong) is justified, as long as the other party does so. However, if Speaker B believes the adage "is unacceptable to violate the law to blame those who also violate the law" he did not make a logical error. From the above conversation, it is impossible to know what Speaker B.
These errors are often used as red fish, or attempts to change or distract from this issue. As an example:
- Speaker A: President Williams lies in his testimony to Congress. She should not have done that.
- Speaker B: But you ignore the fact that President Roberts lied in his Congressional testimony!
Even if President Roberts lies in his Congressional testimony, this does not set a precedent that has earned him President Williams to do so as well. (At best, that means Williams is no worse than Roberts.) By applying errors, the issue of untruthed lies is ignored.
The tu quoque fallacy is the specific type of "two error make rights". Accusing others of not practicing what they preach, while appropriate in some situations, does not in itself undo any actions or statements that are considered contradictory.
Criticism
The general use of the term, in the field of business ethics, has been criticized by scholar Gregory S. Kavka writing in the Journal of Business Ethics . Kavka refers back to the philosophical concepts of retribution by Thomas Hobbes. He states that if something that is considered a moral standard or a general social rule is sufficiently violated in society, then individuals or groups in society may violate such standards or rules because it makes them unfairly disadvantaged. In addition, under certain circumstances, violations of social rules may be preserved if done in direct response to other violations. For example, Kavka states that it is wrong to remove someone from their property, but it is true to take back the property of a criminal who took the treasure of another person in the first place. He also stated that one should be careful not to use this ambiguity as an indiscriminate reason for violating ethical rules.
Conservative journalist Victor Lasky writes in his book It Does not Start With Watergate that while two mistakes do not make a right, if a set of immoral things is done and left unprotected, this creates a legal precedent.. So, people who make the same mistakes in the future should rationally hope to leave as well. Lasky uses as an analogy the situation between John F. Kennedy wiretapping Martin Luther King, Jr. (which causes nothing) and the actions of Richard Nixon at Watergate (which Nixon thought would also cause nothing).
Two errors do not make the correct
Two mistakes do not make a right is a saying that goes against this error - wrong action is not a practical or morally appropriate way to correct or cancel a previous wrongdoing.
See also
- Eye for eye
- Negative doubles
- The wrong dilemma
- Smaller than two criminal principles
- Norm (philosophy)
- Punishment
- Justice of retaliation
- Revenge
- Titoploths
References
External links
- Error File: Two Make Up Errors
- Nizkor: two errors make a right
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments