Two wrongs don't make a right

[Jason76]

Is that really an argument or some ethical mumbo-jumbo?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_wrongs_make_a_right

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 another's property in the first place. He also states that one should be careful not to use this ambiguity as an excuse recklessly to violate ethical rules.[2]

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 unprosecuted, this creates a legal precedent. Thus, people who do the same wrongs in the future should rationally expect to get away as well. Lasky uses as an analogy the situation between John F. Kennedy's wiretapping of Martin Luther King, Jr. (which led to nothing) and Richard Nixon's actions in Watergate (which Nixon thought would also lead to nothing).[3]

 

[Deleted member 5665]

Of course two wrongs don't make a right. That's why when people are wrong about you then you be right about them. Then they just keep making more wrongs. Who is the winner then?

 

[Bluezone777]

"Lasky uses as an analogy the situation between John F. Kennedy's wiretapping of Martin Luther King, Jr. (which led to nothing) and Richard Nixon's actions in Watergate (which Nixon thought would also lead to nothing)."

The reason JFK's wiretapping of MLK JR didn't lead to anything is because of the rampant racism that was going on at the time. If that were not present then that would have caused a fiasco. No legal precedent was being made back there as it was racism not genuine belief that it was legal was the cause of why JFK's wiretapping of MLK JR didn't lead to a scandal. It seems Nixon didn't figure that one out because if he did then he might have not been so eager to commit to wiretapping of his own which did get him into trouble.

Committing a unjust act against another who has committed an unjust act on you will only lead to a cycle of injustice as each side feels the need to respond to the unjust act with another of their own.The only way you break the cycle is by not responding to the unjust act with another unjust act.